Allahabad Court April 1934 Judgments
Darsu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All845; 152Ind.Cas.785
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Darsu who was ordered on 17th January 1933, to furnish security for a period of one year under Section 109, Criminal P.C. The security was not forthcoming and the Magistrate passed the following order:The security is not forthcoming. The accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year unless the order is complied with earlier.2. The accused filed an appeal and he was released on bail pending that appeal on some date which the Learned Counsel is not able to discover. The appeal took a long time in the Sessions Court and was dismissed on 7th December 1933. The accused was then taken into custody on some date not known and there was an order by this Court on 26th February 1934, for his release on bail, but it is stated that the bail was not forthcoming. The claim of Learned Counsel is that more than one year has elapsed from the date of the order of the Magistrate, 17th January 1933, and that such an order must be ta...
Tag this Judgment!Jan Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All833; 152Ind.Cas.804
Bennet, J.1. This is a Criminal revision on behalf of one Jan Ali against his conviction under Section 457-511, Penal Code; and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The Magistrate had sentenced the accused under Sections 456, 457 and 381, I.P.C., and the conviction was altered on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jan Ali is a barkandaz appointed to guard the opium factory at Ghazipur and his duty was to stand, at a certain post No. 12 at night which is outside the enclosure. The Sub Inspector of the factory guard one Rambhuj Singh gave evidenee which was accepted by the Sessions Judge. The evidence was that he found the accused absent from his post at night and on making a search for him he found him coming from the east and he saw that the accused had taken off his turban, his belt, his shirt, his shoes and his patti and was clad only in a lungi and his uniform coat. The Sub Inspector saw two pattis hanging tied on the top of the bars of the enclosure and the other articles of cl...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Kamar UddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All937; 152Ind.Cas.828
Collister, J.1. This is an appeal by four defendants arising out of a suit which was brought by a lambardar for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by himself in respect of 1335 and 1336 Fasli. There were many defendants in the case but only defendants 40 to 44, contested the suit. The plaintiff's case was that he is the lambardar, that in his capacity as lambardar he paid the revenue of the two pattis in suit, and that the defendants, being co-sharers in the said two pattis, are liable to reimburse him to the extent of their respective shares. The four contesting defendants pleaded that they were not co-sharers in these two pattis at all, but that they were in exclusive possession of a portion of the property in suit which consists of grove land, and that the said land is exempt from payment of revenue, and accordingly they were not liable to reimburse the plaintiff lambardar. The trial Court found that the contesting defendants were co-sharers in one of these pattis, but that they we...
Tag this Judgment!Mujtaba Hasan Vs. Raghubir Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1038; 150Ind.Cas.1005
1. This appeal must succeed on the short point that the plaintiff-respondents alone were not entitled to maintain the suit. It appears that there are two classes of people in the village. The plaintiffs are known as zamindars and the defendants as muafidars; while some of the zamindars also hold the character of muafidars. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was in stituted by two out of several zamindars for recovery of what they call their share of the zamindari dues from four out of several muafidars.2. One of the points taken in the Court of first instance and repeated throughout was that the plaintiffs alone could not maintain the suit. The learned Munsif, who heard the suit, looked at the two khewats one for the zamindars and the other for the muafidars, and calculated what according to those khewats would be the share of the plaintiffs in the zamindari dues. He found that the defendants, the plaintiffs and one Lalta Prasad alone were entitled to recover the entire amo...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Nugent Vs. N.E. Nugent
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All782
ORDERYoung, J.1. In this petition the wife asks the Court to dissolve her marriage with the respondent on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The husband asks that his marriage with his wife should be dissolved on the ground of his wife's adultery. The wife filed a petition in this Court. The husband filed his in Jhansi. The husband's petition has been transferred to this Court, in order that both petitions might be heard together. The parties are Anglo-Indian domiciled in India, and they have throughout their married life lived in the United Provinces. This Court has therefore jurisdiction to hear and decide both the petitions. The wife, through her counsel, has admitted adultery and invites the Court to exercise its discretion in her favour.2. The marriage took place in February 1925, and there are three children born of the marriage. Within a year of marriage the husband, who is a doctor in the Indian Medical Department, was transferred from Allahabad to Ranikhet. He appears from th...
Tag this Judgment!Indian States Bank Ltd. Official Liquidator Vs. Kunwar Sardar Singh an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All855
Young, J.1. This is an application by the official liquidator of the Indian States Bank, in liquidation, under Sections 235 and 102(2) of the Indian Companies Act, The official liquidator seeks to make the promoters, the directors, the managing agents, the auditors, and various officials of the branches of the bank liable under the above sections for the total losses and liabilities of the company. In view of the fact that this Bench must be broken up in a few days, we have decided that it is impossible to hear the case as regards the officials of the branches. This judgment, therefore, is confined to the consideration of the liability of the promoters, directors, managing agents and auditors of the company. The defendants whom it is sought to make liable are (1) Rai Bahadur Kunwar Sardar Singh, M.L.C., (2) Capt. Rai Bahadur Lal Bhagwant Singh, (3) Bhaiya Hari Saran Das, (4) B.S. Vidyarthi, (5) Avadh Behari Tandon, (6) Kunwar Gopi Nath Singh, (7) Anand Swarup Bhatnagar, (8) Seth Ahmad ...
Tag this Judgment!Narotam Das Vs. Sanwal Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All946; 153Ind.Cas.664
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree passed by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur upholding the decree passed by the Munsif of Shahganj in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for redemption of certain property. It is no longer in dispute that the original proprietor was one Mohammad Malik who executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage on 19th September 1898 in favour of Deonandan Dube. The latter was in possession of the mortgaged property. The heirs of Mohammad Malik subsequently executed a deed of simple mortgage on 19th September 1900 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Deonandan was dispossessed some time before 1911 and sued the heirs of the mortgagor for recovery of his mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property. A decree for sale was passed and the mortgaged property was sold in execution of that decree. The appellant was declared to be the purchaser and obtained delivery of possession on 16th August 1922. In the meantime the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Hari Kishan Shastir Vs. Ratan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All973
King, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Kumaun decreeing the plaintiff's suit and reversing the decision of the trial Court. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the interest of a muafidar in Kumaun is transferable. The plaintiff purchased the rights of certain muafidars in a village and brought a suit for declaration that he is entitled to realise khaikari rent and malikana, and for recovery of arrears. One of the principal defences was that muafi rights cannot be transferred. The trial Court gave effect to this defence and held that the transfer of muafi rights was contrary to public policy, as it involved the loss of land revenue in favour of persons for whose benefit the original remission was not made. The muafi in question was given by the Nepal Government many generations ago to certain Brahmins that they might give their blessings for the welfare of the Maharaja of Nepal. As the learned District Judge has remarked it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1016; 153Ind.Cas.157
Collister, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of a case under Section 353, Penal Code. The two applicants were convicted by the trial Court and were sentenced to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. They appealed to the Sessions Judge and their appeal has been dismissed, except that the sentence of fine has been remitted.2. It appears that there was a decree against Raghunath, who is one of the applicants in this revision. A warrant of attachment was given to the amin and it was made returnable up to 20th March 1933. This amin has a monthly programme, according to which he works in the Oral tahsil from the 1st to the 13th of each. month and in the Konch tahsil for the remainder of the month. On 1st April, the amin sent a report to the effect that he had not been able to execute this warrant and that he would not have time to go to this particular village in April. On 4th April, the tahsildar wrote on the amin's report : 'Let the...
Tag this Judgment!L. Madho Ram and anr. Vs. Jai Chand Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All360; 155Ind.Cas.933
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge, Saharanpur, dated 11th April 1933, by which he purported to dispose of two applications, one dated 28th November 1931 by Jai Chand Rai and others and the other dated 20th February 1933; by Col. D.P. Goyel. The facts of the case are that one Mt. Kasturi. executed a will on 20th March 1920 by which she gave certain directions, regarding her property. On 1st August 1931 Col. Goyel who had obtained probate of the will of his wife, Mt. Kasturi, applied for the sale of certain immovable property covered by the will. Permission was granted to Col. Goyel on 17th August 1931 and we have been informed that in pursuance of the permission the property was actually sold on 14th October 1931.2. On 28th November 1931 Jai Chand Rai and others applied to the learned District Judge that:the order dated 17th August 1931 be set aside and proper directions for the due administration of the trust be ordered and the damages resulting from mi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »