Allahabad Court January 1935 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.
ibn Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All608; 155Ind.Cas.490
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad dismissing an appeal against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal P.C. by which it was ordered that a complaint should be made against the applicant under Section 193, Penal Code.2. The facts are perfectly simple. The applicant is the editor of a paper in Moradabad, and he prosecuted the editor of another paper for defamation. His case was dismissed. The other editor was accused by him of defaming him by saying that the applicant had persuaded the other editor to write against the Nawab of Rampur and the administration of that State, and the applicant in his evidence stated on oath that he had never persuaded the accused to write against the Rampur State. The accused however was able to bring a number of witnesses to testify to hearing the applicant, giving instructions to the other editor to write articles against the Rampur State. The witnesses we...
Ram Gopal and anr. Vs. Ram Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All910; 157Ind.Cas.343
1. This is a second appeal by decree-holders whose application in execution under Section 47, against the judgment-debtors has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The application sets out the following facts:The decree-holders had a Small Cause Court decree against the judgment-debtors and in execution the decree-holders purchased a certain house for Rs. 350, and that amount was set off from the decretal amount. The sale certificate was obtained and proceedings for possession were taken and a person called Mohan resisted the decree-holders when they attempted to obtain possession. The date of this resistance is not stated. Subsequently the decree-holders filed a suit No. 677 of 1929, against Mohan for possession, but the decree-holders did not make the judgment-debtors parties to that suit. The decree-holders lost their suit against Mohan and it was held that Mohan was the owner of the house and that the judgment-debtors were not the owners of the house. The present application ask...
Ramsarup and anr. Vs. Peare Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.53
1. This is an application in revision by the defendants arising out of a suit brought on an instalment bond for Rs. 5,000 payable in 10 years. The bond contained a provision that half-yearly instalments of Rs. 250 would to paid and on default of payment of any two instalments, the whole amount would become payable, and the creditors would be at liberty to sue for the entire amount. Defaults were made for 5 instalments, and a suit for recovery of these instalments, was filed in 1933. In the plaint the creditors expressly mentioned that they were abandoning their right to recover the whole amount in a lump sum, and that in future they would sue for the future instalments as they fell due. This suit was decreed. Later on they brought another suit for recovery of one further instalment when it fell due, and it was ultimately withdrawn on condition of the plaintiff's paying the costs of the defendants. The plaint was returned to the plaintiffs, although they had not deposited the defendants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›