Allahabad Court December 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.
Moti Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All164; 153Ind.Cas.907
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The applicant Moti Lal is the tenant of a zamindar called Basdeo. The latter distrained Moti Lal's crop and Moti Lal instituted a suit for illegal distraint. In that suit he valued the crop for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 40-3-8. The suit was contested but it was decreed and Basdeo's appeal was dismissed. The applicant eventually had a decree against Basdeo for Rs. 18-10-6 as costs. He put in an application for execution on 29th November 1934. In that he claimed not only the sum of Rs. 18-10-6 which was due to him under the decree but also a sum of Rs. 40-3.8 which was not due to him but was merely inserted in his plaint as the value of the crop distrained. The decree had been that the crop should be returned. Two warrants were issued for the arrest of Basdeo, but they were not served and no money was recovered. Then on 6th February 1935 the applicant apparently discovered that there was a mistake in his application, and he filed a further application for amendment s...
Ram Bharosey and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All269
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. He has recommended that the conviction of two men under Sections 6 and 4, respectively, of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, should be quashed and a retrial ordered. The two accused persons were tried by the District Magistrate of Etawah summarily. One of them was fined Rs. 150 and the other Rs. 100. The chief question at issue was whether the girl in respect of whom the offences are said to have been committed was or was not under 14 years of age. Evidence was produced by the prosecution and then witnesses were examined by the accused. Among these witnesses was a doctor who gave it as his opinion that the girl was over 14 years of age. The complainant then made an application to a Magistrate suggesting that he himself should see the girl and get her medically examined by some other doctor. The Magistrate acceded to this request, and having seen the girl came to the conclusion that she could not possibly b...
Raghubar Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All370; 163Ind.Cas.250
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Budaun who has recommended that the conviction of one Raghubar Dayal under Sub-clauses (i) and (j), Clause (1), Rule 12, United Provinces-Sugarcane Rules, should be set aside. Raghubar Dayal was a licenced purchasing agent under the rules. The allegation made against him was that he made-deductions from the weight of cane recorded on account of unsuitability and' that he made deductions from the price of the cane purchased which reduced such price to a figure below that calculated at the prescribed minimum rate-otherwise than was provided in a certain rule. The Magistrate found that Raghubar Dayal had made deductions of 10 seers per cart from a number of carts supplied by a number of witnesses and that he had charged three pies in the rupee on the price which he was paying on the ground that this money was to go to charity in the form of a gaushala. He found that the price ultimately paid was below the minimum. One ...
Raja Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All140; 155Ind.Cas.657; 160Ind.Cas.1088
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad suggesting that sentence of fine should be set aside in revision and also that an order binding the accused person over under Section 106, Criminal P.C., should be set aside. The accused person was fined under Section 120-B, Railways Act, for using abusive language on the Railway Station. He is a pragwal and there was the usual dispute about pilgrims. It appears that an association has been formed to prevent pragwals from making a nuisance of themselves. The accused went to the station and tried to force two pilgrims to accompany him. One of the members of the association remonstrated with him and he is then said to have used the most filthy abuse and to have invited the member of the association to come outside the station where he would give him a thorough good beating. The learned Magistrate believed the evidence. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has made this referenc...
Emperor Vs. Batuk
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All142; 160Ind.Cas.889
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Mirzapur has made a reference to this Court recommending that an order passed under Section 133, Criminal P.C., by a Magistrate of the first class, should be set aside in revision. The Magistrate passed, a provisional order that one Batuk should remove an unlawful obstruction from a public way. Batuk appeared to oppose this order and put in a written statement in which he said, among other things, that there was no public way at the place where the alleged obstruction had been put up. The Magistrate gave him time-to produce evidence and eventually as he asked for adjournments and did not bring any witnesses, the Court made the original order absolute. There was however some material upon the record from which the Magistrate might have concluded that there was reliable evidence in support of the denial of the existence of a public way. The learned Magistrate-appears to have misdirected himself because he appears to have thought that it was...
B. Ramesh Chandra and anr. Vs. (Firm) Kashi Ram Bhajan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All152
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by plaintiffs against a decree of the Small Cause Court of Farrukhabad dismissing a suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are two minors who sued through the Collector of Farrukhabad as manager of Court of Wards for a sum of money alleged to be due from the defendant on the basis of a bahikhata account. The lower Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court found that on 17th November 1928 the defendant purchased a hundi from the plaintiff for Rs. 2,502-5-6 and therefore became in debt to the plaintiff for payment of that amount. A few days later on 20th November 1928, the father of the plaintiffs died. By 25th November 1929 the defendant firm had paid almost all the principal but apparently the interest was not paid. On 16th November 1929 the defendant firm made a payment to the plaintiff by a cheque (Ex. l). This was the last transaction and the suit was brought more than three years after this date in 1934. There is no doub...
Anant Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All147
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore that an order sentencing certain accused persons to a fine of Rs. 30 each should be set aside in revision. The case was that the accused persons had gone to the house of one Sagar and had tried to take away by force his wife Mt. Rahiman. There were two sets of accused persons, namely, Madari and two other Mahouts of one part and six Thakurs of the other part. Madari's defence was that the woman whose real name was Mst. Mariam was his wife and that she was living with Sagar. He said further that there had been a panchayat which had decided that the woman should return to him. The Thakurs said that they had been implicated on account of enmity with Ram Lal, Sita Ram and the Sub-Inspector in charge of the police station. They maintained that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mahouts and that there was no reason why they should help Madari to take this woman away. Madari was arrested on the spot. There...
L. Sohan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All192
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Muzaffarnagar has made a reference that a sentence of fine passed under the Municipalities Act for breach of a bye-law should be set aside. The bye-law is to the following effect:No person shall build, keep a stall or other wise interfere with or encroach upon any land which is the property of His Majesty or of the board, or which is under the control of the board, unless permission to this effect has been duly granted by order on behalf of His Majesty or the Board, and no person shall continue to do so after such permission has ceased to be in force or has been withdrawn.2. The fact is that the accused person Sohan Lal had constructed certain projections (chhajjas and todas) over some land which was claimed by the Municipal Board as being part of a public street. It is admitted that this land was the property of a private owner Bishambhar Das. At one time the Municipality made an attempt to buy this land and afterwards to acqu...
Muhammad Khalil Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All356; 160Ind.Cas.854
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate under the provisions of Section 133, Criminal P C., should be set aside in appeal. An application was made to the Magistrate that one Muhammad Khalil had gathered materials for building a house on a public place used by the public for recreation in the town of Mau. The Magistrate issued a provisional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C. Muhammad Khalil then appeared and denied that the place was a public place at all. He said that the land was his own and that he had bought it from the zamindar. The Magistrate purported then to hold an inquiry under Section 139-A, Criminal P.C. Muhammad Khalil produced the karinda of the zamindar and proved that he had bought the land.2. It may be that the Magistrate is right in thinking that Muhammad Khalil had no right whatsoever to this land and that the land was really the property of the public or that the public was ...
Sah Chaturbhuj Vs. Sah Mauji Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All537; 163Ind.Cas.984
Rachhpal Singh, J. 1. These are two plaintiff's first appeals arising out of two suits to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The facts which have given rise to the litigation between the parties, can briefly be stated as follows: The following pedigree will show the relationship between Chaturbhuj, plaintiff, and Mauji Ram, defendant. MEGHRAD | ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Bhawani Ram Ganga Biahan Sadasukh Shiblal | | | | Tejpal Jagroop Onkar Das Mauji Ram | | | defendant. Chainsukh ------------------ Chaturbhuj = | | Plaintiff. Gulab Kuar Ramchander Tej Ram | -------------- | | Janki Pd. Tribeni Pd.2. The plaintiff, Sah Chaturbhuj, alleged that owing to the enmity which exists between him and Mauji Ram, defendant, the latter complained to the Superintendent of Police of Mainpuri who directed on that complaint that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., should be taken against Chaturbhuj and certain other persons. When the case und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »