Allahabad Court May 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mt. Rukmina and ors. Vs. Mohib Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All938; 153Ind.Cas.695
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 57,486 on the basis of a mortgage. On 6th January 1914 one Parmeshar Rai, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, executed a mortgage for Bs. 2,699 in favour of Wazir Khan and others, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. The principal amount was to carry compound interest at the rate of 25 per cent, per annum with six monthly rests. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the mortgage had been executed under undue influence and that the rate of interest was excessive. The trial Court decreed the suit. The only point that has been pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants in his arguments before us is that the rate of interest is unconscionable and is open to interference by this Court under Section 16, Contract Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in full holding that the rate of interest was not excessive having regard to the rate of interest prevalent in the distri...
Sarju Singh Vs. Shyam Sunder Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All948; 153Ind.Cas.674
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court holding that the decree of the Court of first instance so far as defendants 2 to 4 are concerned should be set aside, but the decree was maintained as against defendant 1. The plaintiff sued on three simple money bonds executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint set out that after the execution of these simple money bonds defendant 1 made a gift of his entire property to defendant 2 in order to avoid payment of the amount due on the bonds and later defendant 2 made a gift of it to defendants 3 and 4. Therefore the plain. tiff sued defendants 2 to 4 on the bonds. The suit of plaintiff against defendants 2 to 4. was brought under the provisions of Section 128, T.P. Act, on the allegation that fchese defendants were universal donees of the property of defendant 1. The Court of first instance decreed the suit of the plaintiff in full against all the defendants. Defendants 2 ...
In Re: Rajendra Chandra Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All958; 152Ind.Cas.825
Mukerji, J.1. Originally there was only one application before us, namely, for grant of a succession certificate. In our opinion, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate which can be granted only by the 'District Judge.' The definition of a 'District Judge' as put in by Act 17 of 1929 points to Judge of principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction. This definition would include High Courts, which have got original civil jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which this Court does not possess. Mr. Sen has cited before us Home cases in order to show that a High Court, which does not possess original civil jurisdiction, is entitled to grant a succession certificate. The first case cited by him is the case of In the goods of Bholanath Pal 1931 Cal 580. This is a Single Judge decision, and it, does appear that the learned Judge exercised jurisdiction although the matter came from a place which was not within the local limits of the original jurisdiction of the High Court. I...
Hakim Syed WahajuddIn Vs. Hakim Syed Ali Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All983; 153Ind.Cas.595
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff Syed Wahajuddin whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiff sets up the validity of a certain document, a translation of which is printed on p. 29 of the paper book in First Appeal No. 247 of 1925. That document was executed by Hakim Saiyid Mubarak Ali on 23rd October 1913. The document purported to be a wakf of all his property and in para. 4 (b) it is stated as follows:Similarly out of the aforesaid 2/3 of the income, my grandson by my daughter, Syed Wahajuddin, will be entitled to get Rs. 5 for maintenance generation after generation.2. The document in question was subject of a suit and it was eventually held by this Court in Irfan Ali v. Official Receiver Agra 1930 All. 837, that the document was invalid as a wakf, the chief ground, being that there was no ultimate deed of gift for religious pious or charitable purposes and therefore that the document could not be valid under the terms of Act 6 of 1913 wh...
Bindhyachal Chand and ors. Vs. Ram Gharib Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All993; 152Ind.Cas.1
ORDER1. This Letters Patent appeal raises a question of limitation. 2. The plaintiff belongs to the same family as the defendants other than defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff claimed possession over certain sir lands on the allegation that ha was a co-sharer of these lands with the defendants other than defendants 1 to 3, but in defiance of his rights the defendant, Paras Ram, executed a deed of gift in favour of defendants 1 to 3 on 5th May 1919. The plaintiff alleged that the deed of gift was contested in the Revenue Court and also in the civil Court and thereafter on the plaintiff's failure, defendants 1 to 3 dispossessed the plaintiff of the lands in 1922. The plaintiff claimed joint possession over a half share in the lands in suit.3. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title. Tbore was an appeal and the lower appellate COM!; found at one time that the plaintiff and the defendants other than defendants ...
Rameshwar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All879
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision against an order of the Sessions Judge confirming a conviction of Rameshwar, who is on bail, and sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, under Sections 225B-34J, Penal Code. The facts are, that some constables went to arrest one Mahadeo and the present accused resisted the arrest and Mahadeo ran away. The point taken in revision is that the order of arrest issued under Section 55, Criminal P.C., did not comply with the provisions of Section 56, Criminal P.C., 'as the warrant did not specify the offence or other cause' for which the arrest was to be made. The Sub-Inspector in charge of a police station sent a requisition under Section 55, Criminal P.C., to the head-constable in charge of an outpost for execution and the head-constable sent constables under him to execute that requisition but did not accompany those constables. The requisition in question is stated to be Ex. A of Criminal Record 70 of 1933 and that requisition...
Mohammad Jan Vs. Gulzari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All905; 153Ind.Cas.160
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit under Section 132, Agra Tenancy Act for arrears of rent. It appears that two brothers held a joint tenancy. They are now dead and at the date of a suit one branch was represented by Jwala and Baldeo and the other by the defendant-respondent, Gulzari and others. Jwala and Baldeo sued under Section 37, Tenancy Act, for partition of the holding and they impleaded the zamindar, who is the plaintiff-appellant in this case. On 4th April 1930, the plaintiff put in an application in which he stated that he had no objection to the partition. Accordingly the suit was decreed and the holding was partitioned and the Court directed that the said partition be recorded in the revenue papers; but for some reason or other that order was not complied with. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the members of both branches of the family, thus treating the tenancy as joint. Gulzari objected that there had been a partitio...
Nem Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All908; 152Ind.Cas.741
Thom, J.1. The appellants, Nem Singh, Karan Singh, Kanwal Singh, Sahib Ram, Sheodan Singh and Mukhtar Singh, have been convicted under Section 302, read with Section 149, Penal Code. Sheodan Singh has been sentenced to transportation for life, and the others have been condemned to death. The appellants were charged in connection with the murder of one Sham Lai. One Chhidda was charged along with them. Chhidda however has been acquitted in the Sessions Court. The charge against the accused was that about 1 a.m., on the night of 24th-25th July 1933, in the village Tarapur, they attacked Sham Lal and inflicted upon him injuries to which he succumbed seven days later. That Sham Lal on the night in question was the victim of an assault, and that he did sustain injuries which eventually resulted in his death is not in dispute. According to the prosecution case, Sham Lal was attacked by a body of ten or twelve men about 1 o'clock in the morning whilst he was asleep on a cot on his ohabutra. T...
Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All944; 152Ind.Cas.884
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one Nazir Ahmad in criminal revision asking that an order of the District Magistrate for further enquiry into a charge of riot under Section 147, Penal Code, should be set aside. The case has been argued by Miss Clarke with considerable ability and the points have been clearly laid before me. The facts are that the Magistrate heard all the evidence for the prosecution and passed an order of discharge of Nazir Ahmad on 1st April 1933 discharging this accused under Section 253, Criminal P.C., no charge sheet having been framed. There was a trial of other persons under Section 147, Penal Code, before the Sessions Judge and in his judgment the Sessions Judge stated:Considering the prosecution evidence, I am astonished to find that Nazir, the ringleader of the party, has not been sent up for trial with these accused. In fact he was the originator of this riot and leader of this party and should have been challaned. The District Magistrat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›