Allahabad Court September 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.
Lal Mehar Chand Vs. Lala Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1057
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration. In order to understand the case it is necessary to bear in mind the following facts:Roop Chand obtained a decree against. Bishambar Das, judgment-debtor, in 1926, Joti Prasad also obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor in 1927. In. March 1927, Roop Chand applied for the execution of his decree and attached the property which is now in suit. On 8th June 1927, Joti Prasad also applied for the execution of his decree and for rateable distribution. The Court, on 8th July 1927, directed that there should be a rateable distribution of assets. In execution, of the decree which Roop Chand held against the judgment-debtor the property was auctioned on 21st January 1928, and 21st February 1928 was fixed for the confirmation of the sale. On 10th February 1928 Joti Prasad made an. application to the Court asking that Roop Chand, decree, holder who had purchased the property at an auction s...
Ram Bhajan Kasodhan and anr. Vs. Matbar Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All41; 152Ind.Cas.503
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration.2. One Ganga was the father of Ram Lagan, Ram Bhajan and Thakur. Mt., Ramkali was the wife of Ganga. When Ganga died, all his three sons were minors. It appears that some time after the death of Ganga, Mt. Ramkali made an application to the District Judge asking that she should be appointed to act as guardian of the person and property of the three minors who constituted a, joint family. The Court appointed Mt. Ram Kali to act as guardian of her three minor sons.3. On 30th April 1921, Mt. Ramkali made an application to the District Judge asking for permission to create a mortgage over a part, of the estate of the minor (1 anna and 3 pies share) in order to pay off certain debts alleged to be due to creditors from the father of the minors. On 26th September 1921, the District Judge granted permission to Mt. Ramkali in the following words:Permission granted to the guardian to...
Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Uttama Debi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All79; 152Ind.Cas.737
ORDERBajpai, J.1. Tins is an application m revision by Ram Sahai and others against an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 139(a), Criminal P.C., and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. The facts may be briefly stated. One Srimati Uttama Debi, wife of Chaudhari Raghubir Narain Singh, is the owner of a kothi No. 5133 called the 'Aziz Manzil' situate on the western Kutcherry Road in Meerut. After she had acquired this property one Bulaqi applied under Section 133, Criminal P.C., against one Ratan Lal, said to be a karinda of Srimati Uttama Debi, (it is however alleged before me by counsel for Srimati Uttama Debi that Ratan Lal is not her karinda but the karinda of her husband) for the removal of a pucca wall erected by Ratan Lal across a certain path which was alleged to be a public path in which the public had a right of way. It might be mentioned here that Srimati Uttama Debi was not a party to these proceedings. Notices of those proceedings were served on Ratan Lal by af...
Shyam NaraIn Misir and anr. Vs. Mangal Prasad Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All244; 153Ind.Cas.163
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of 1879. The plaintiffs claim to be the representatives of the mortgagor under a sale-deed, dated 13th September 1927, executed by Ram Narayan son of Mt. Bhagwanti, who was the daughter of Mt. Budna the mortgagor. The defendants, who are the representatives of the mortgagees, pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right of redemption left inasmuch as they had acquired proprietary title under the sale-deeds of 2nd August 1910, and 4th January 1927, executed by Ram Narayan previous to that in favour of the plaintiffs.2. It appears that on the death of Mt. Budna, she was succeeded by two or three daughters, one of whom Mt. Bhagwanti died in 1904, another daughter having died earlier. On the death of Mt. Bhagwanti, the name of Ram Narayan was entered against a half-share in the estate, while the name of the other daughter, Mt. Akashi continued to remain recorded against the other half. In 1910, Ram ...
Sarnam Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All63; 152Ind.Cas.550
ORDERBajpai, J.1. This is an application by Sarnam Singh, Kishen Lal and Ram Phool alias Man Phool who were tried by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 368, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100 fine. Their conviction and sentence were affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.2. In revision it has been argued before me that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try this case. It is said that under Section 368, Penal Code, the accused who wrongfully conceals or keeps in confinement a kidnapped or abducted girl shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge or for the same purpose as with that or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. The argument is that it is possible that according to circumstances an offence under Section 368, Penal Code, might be punishable in the same manner as an offence under Section 363, Penal Code, or as ...
Habibur Razzaq Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All31; 152Ind.Cas.393
1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below.2. The plaintiff-appellant was the head, clerk of the Municipal Board, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, from 1924 to 1929. Defendant 2 was the chairman of the Board up to 7th February 1927, when he was succeeded by defendant 1 who held that office, till 1931, and perhaps subsequently. The appellant was in charge of the stationery and a report was made by some official to defendant 2 during his tenure of office that the appellant had embezzled a certain sum of money which his account showed had been spent in the purchase of stationery. The suspicion was apparently based on the absence of receipt from the seller of the stationery in question. Defendant 2 started a departmental, enquiry which was not completed when he relinquished office. That enquiry was continued after defendant 1 assumed charge. According to the findings arrived a...
Sudama Rai and ors. Vs. Bisheshar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All92; 152Ind.Cas.939
1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out, of a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for ejectment under the provisions of Section 58, old Agra Tenancy Act, 1901. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the two plots in suit were their sir and that the defendants had been holding them as their sub-tenants. On the refusal of the defendants to vacate the plots, the plaintiffs instituted their suit.2. The defendants pleaded that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist and that they themselves were the proprietors of the two plots. The learned Assistant Collector found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the plots in suit and that the defendants were holding them as trespassers. In his opinion, a trespasser could not be ejected under the provisions of Section 58, of the old Tenancy Act, 1901. He therefore dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Collector to the Court of the Commissioner. Dur...
Rurmal Ram Nath Vs. Kapil Man Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All353; 153Ind.Cas.65
Collister, J.1. These are two applications in revision against an order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur, rejecting a petition of the plaintiff-applicant to amend his plaint in a certain suit. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 11,000, odd on the basis of a note of hand which is alleged to have been executed by defendant 1, on 10th October 1932, the consideration for the said note of hand being the balance which was found to be due from defendant 1 upon an accounting between the parties. Execution of the note of hand was apparently denied and the document was sent to the Examiner of Questioned Documents. The latter's report was against the plaintiff and accordingly on 14th July 1933, the plaintiff applied for amendment of his plaint in such a manner as to base his claim alternatively on the bahi khata account. The application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the amendment sought for would change the basis of the suit. A similar application was, ma...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Musri Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1009; 153Ind.Cas.220
1. These two cross-appeals arise out of the same suit. One Sheo PraSad Lal was the original owner of the property in suit. He died in 1868, leaving a widow Mt. Hansrani and three daughters Mt. Karorpati, Mt. Indarpati and Mt. Ramkali, Mt. Indarpati died before her mother. The latter died in 1910, leaving her other two daughters surviving her. Mt. Ramkali died in 1911 without leaving any issue and Mt. Karorpati thus became entitled to the entire property which her father had left. She died in 1928, leaving two sons who are the plaintiffs in this suit. They challenge certain transfers which were made by their mother Mt. Karorpati and their maternal grandmother, Mt. Hansrani. These alienations may be divided into three sets:On 9th January 1877, Mt. Hansrani executed a simple mortgage bond for Rs. 600 in favour of one Parwarish Lal, by which she hypothecated a one anna share in the village of Barhara Baraipar and on 23rd November 1879, she executed a simple money bond for Rs. 609 in favour...
Gulab Chand and ors. Vs. Peary Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All99; 152Ind.Cas.384
1. A preliminary objection is taken to this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council that it is barred by time. Judgment in this case was pronounced by the High Court on 23rd January 1934, and a decree was prepared later on. An application for a copy of the decree was filed on 28th April 1934, and the copy was ready for delivery on 16th May 1934. This application for leave to appeal was filed on 21st July 1934. It is therefore obvious that if the time required for obtaining of the decree be not excluded from the period of limitation prescribed for such applications, the application is beyond time. Indeed the time expired before the long vacation commenced, and therefore the applicant is not entitled to add to that period the period of the long vacation.2. The learned advocate for the applicants contends before us that under Section 12(3), Limitation Act, he is entitled to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment also in addition to the time requi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »