Allahabad Court August 1934 Judgments
Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1025; 153Ind.Cas.407
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Benares at Jaunpur, by which he recommends that the conviction of Mahadeo Agrahari, Bechan Agrahari, Dargahi Chamar and Sukhram Chamar be sat aside. The facts seem to be that a complaint was filed against five persons, that is to say, the four persons mentioned above and one Mahabir under Sections 447 and 352, Penal Code. The trying Magistrate acquitted Mahabir, convicted Mabadeo and Bechan under Sections 352 and 447, Penal Code, and Dargahi and Sukhram under Section 447, Penal Code, alone. On appeal the learned Magistrate of the First Class, with appellate powers set aside the conviction of. Mahadeo and Bechan under Section 352, Penal Code, but maintained their conviction and the conviction of Dargahi and Sukhram under Section 447, Penal Code. The sentence was a small sentence of fine. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the conviction is illegal. The first ground mentioned by the learned Judge is ...
Tag this Judgment!Hoshiar Singh and anr. Vs. Gobardhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1027; 153Ind.Cas.158
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by Hoshiar Singh and Kabool Singh decree-holders from an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarnagar remanding an appeal to him by Gobardhan Das whose connexion with the decree under execution will be presently shown. One Tarif who was indebted to the respondent, Gobardhan Das, executed a deed of simple mortgage on 1st May 1924, in favour of the appellants. Subsequently, on 3rd May 1924, Tarif executed a deed of sale in respect of the name property in favour of Balwant for Rs. 9,000, part of which was left with the vendee for satisfaction of the mortgage in favour of the appellants. Gobardhan Das obtained a simple money decree against Tarif and proceeded to attach the property which, wan the subject of the mortgage and sale above referred to. In course of the execution proceeding he came in conflict with Balwant. This led to suits under Order 21, Rule 61, C.P.C., in which it was decided that the sale-deed in favour of Hal ...
Tag this Judgment!Reoti Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1046; 153Ind.Cas.155
ORDERBajpai, J.1. Reoti Prasad the applicant before me executed a bond presumably under Section 499, Criminal P.C., in the sum of Rs. 200 by which he covenanted to produce Sarju Prasad, an accused person when required by the Court. It appears that Sarju Prasad himself did not execute any bond. Reoti Prasad failed to produce the accused when asked. The Magistrate therefore took proceedings under Section 514, Criminal P.C., for the forfeiture of the bond, and the order that was passed, was to the effect that the entire amount of the bond, namely Rs. 200 be forfeited and in default Reoti Prasad was ordered to undergo three months' Section I. This order was affirmed on appeal by the learned District Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has however referred the matter to this Court with a recommendation that the order be quashed. He is of the opinion that as the accused Sarju Prasad himself did not execute a bond for his appearance, but the applicant Reoti Prasad alone executed a bond as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Shanta Nand Gir Vs. Basudeva Nand Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All986
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision filed by the defendant against an order of the Court below refusing to take up the case piecemeal and decide a question of law raised by the defendant. The suit was of a declaratory nature and challenged a previous Civil Court decree principally on the ground of fraud. Before the settlement of the issues the defendant applied on 18th April 1933, praying that the question of the sufficiency of the court-fees might be gone into first and the remaining issues in the case be decided later. The Court framed issues on 2nd March 1933, and decided the question of court-fee on 27th May 1933. The question of court-fee was somehow reopened and it was again decided in favour of the plaintiff on 19th August 1933. The Court had fixed 1st February 1934, as the date for the hearing of the evidence. On 4th December 1933, the defendant applied to the Court that all the legal issues including the one relating to the maintainability of the suit be decide...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All987; 153Ind.Cas.131
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case is considered to be a test case and has been referred to a Division Bench. The applicant is a merchant who has been selling bamboos, bailies, takhats and karies, that is, bamboos, rafters, wooden boards and beams, within the limits of Meerut Cantonment without any license. He was prosecuted and found guilty by a Magistrate under Section 268, Cantonments Act, for being a dealer in wood. He has however been let off with a mere admonition. The question is whether the trade and calling of the applicant brings him within the category of 'dealer in hay, straw, wood, charcoal or other inflammable material' mentioned in Clause (m), Section 210. The word 'wood' used therein is very general and is not qualified in any way. But the learned advocate for the applicant contends before us that the last expression 'or other inflammable material' implies only the particular kind of wood which happens to be inflammable, is prohibited. This would mean that on some wet days a de...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Murtaza Vs. Mt. Fasiunnissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All129; 152Ind.Cas.370
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money with interest. Originally the claim was based on two promissory notes of January 1925 and December 1927; but later the plaintiff got the plaint amended and claimed to recover an earlier debt, the time being saved by the alleged acknowledgments of 1925 and 1927. The cause of action alleged in the amended plaint was the date on which the liability of the debt was admitted by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the claim was barred by time. The lower appellate Court has come to a contrary conclusion and has decreed the claim, holding that the acknowledgment of the old debt saved time. The learned Judge had relied on the case of Govind Singh v. Bijoy Bahadur Singh 1929 All. 980, in support of his view.2. In that case Niamatullah, J., certainly was inclined to take the view that an acknowledgment, clear and unconditional, can itself be the foundation of an a...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal and anr. Vs. Har Lal Sah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All984; 153Ind.Cas.556
Collister, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal. One Kundan Lal, a Vaish by caste, owned certain property in the Kumaon District. He died in 1875, leaving a widow Mt. Gomti Sahan and also an adopted son Gopal Sah, who died without issue. Mt. Gomti Sahan remained in possession of the property up till August 1921 when she died; but before her death, she made a trust in respect of the said property. Mohan Lal and Debi Lal, defendants 1 and 2, and Mt. Ghittra Sahan, defendant 3, sued for cancellation of the trust and they obtained a decree in 1925, since when they have been in possession. The plaintiffs in this suit were Mt. Jainti and her two sons, a nephew Daya Ram and Mt. Shyam Sundari and her three sons. There is a pedigree of the family in the judgment of the Court below and it is not necessary to state it again here. The sons of the two widows and the nephew subsequently withdrew from the suit. The suit was therefore one by two widows of collaterals in equal degree with Kundan Lal and t...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza HusaIn Yar Beg Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All137
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application by the appellant (defendant 2 in the original suit) praying that a decree be passed in terms of a registered compromise arrived at between the appellant and the plaintiffs-respondents on 1st February 1933. The original document was in possession of the plaintiffs-respondents. The appellant filed a certified copy thereof with his application in this Court. He also prayed that the plaintiffs-respondents be called upon to produce the original deed of compromise. An order was passed by this Court sending down the certified copy of the compromise to the lower Court for 'verification and report.' The lower appellate Court issued a notice to the plaintiffs-respondents directing them to file the original deed of compromise and to verify the same. The plaintiffs-respondents appeared before the lower Court and filed the original with an application in which they admitted having executed the registered compromise relied on by the appellant but alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sukhdeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1052; 152Ind.Cas.41
1. This is a reference under Section 61, Stamp Act, made by the Collector of Gorakhpur. One Sukh Deo executed three documents styled receipts on the 5th December 1931, 28th January 1932 and 13th October 1932. They are all in identical terms. Therein Sukh Deo declared that he had borrowed a certain sum of money at a certain rate of interest. The concluding sentence is ' Hence this receipt has been executed.' None of the documents bore any stamp. They were produced in a certain litigation between. Sukh Deo and Katnta in whose favour the documents had been executed. The Judge of the Small Cause Court impounded them,but subsequently admitted them in evidence on payment by the party concerned of stamp duty payable on agreements together with a penalty of Rs. 7-8-0 in each case. On the matter coming to the notice of the Collector, the latter found that in the case of the document dated 5th December 1931 the Small Cause Court Judge had charged stamp duty of 12 annas and a penalty of Rs. 7-8-0...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Faryad Fatima Bibi Vs. Mujahid Abbas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1064; 152Ind.Cas.360
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration, which has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Allahabad on the ground that it is 'premature.' The circumstances which led to the institution; of the suit are as follows:Defendant 1, Mujahid Abbas, executed a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 1,250 in favour of the plaintiff. He had previously executed another deed of simple, mortgage in favour of Janki Prasad andV others hypothecating certain properties, including those covered by the mortgage-in favour of the plaintiff. Janki Prasad and others obtained a decree for sale on their mortgage, and so did the plaintiff, It is clear that the plaintiff could only proceed to have the property mortgaged to her sold in case the prior mortgage was satisfied with the sale proceeds of properties other than that mortgaged to the plaintiff. This was not however the case. The entire property mortgaged to Janki Prasad and others had to be sold, and after satisfacti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »