Allahabad Court February 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.
Deep Chand and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All627; 157Ind.Cas.915
ORDERKendall, J.1. These two references have been made by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, for the purpose of having the conviction of five persons set aside, and a retrial ordered, on the ground that the order of the Magistrate is not maintainable because of certain illegalities. The facts are briefly given in the order of reference.2. It is said in the first place that two of the accused persons, Dip Chand and Hulas Chand, were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, and that the Court did not therefore observe the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P.C. The record shows that the accused were charged on 7th July 1934, that the prosecution witnesses were recalled for cross-examination including the complainant and that the complainant was examined and cross-examined on the 13th and 14th and the rest of the prosecution witnesses on the 20th July. The accused were represented by several different lawyers, and the explanation of the Magistrate shows...
Keshab Deo Vs. B. Rajendra Kumar Bhattacharji, Official Receiver and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All687; 155Ind.Cas.563
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the order passed by the learned District Judge, Aligarh, in the exercise of his jurisdiction as Judge of the Insolvency Court. One Ganga Saran was adjudged insolvent. The Official Receiver proceeded to sell a house belonging to the insolvent. On 7th May 1933, he held a public auction and one Ram Prasad offered the highest bid of Rs. 775. He deposited one-fourth of the price on that day and the three-fourths on 16th May 1933. The Receiver duly acknowledged receipt of these sums. In the meantime' on 13th May 1933, Ganeshi made an offer of Rs. 1,025 to the Receiver, who referred the matter to the Court, and the Court directed that the property should be sold to the highest bider. The Receiver sent a notice by registered post to Ram Prasad intimating the fact that Ganeshi had offered Rs. 1,025. The letter was returned with the endorsement that the addressee had refused to take it. Thereupon the Receiver executed a sale-deed in favour of Ganeshi and ...
Amir Ahmad Vs. Syed Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All671; 155Ind.Cas.684
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for partition in which a question arose as to the-title of the rival claimants. On 2nd February 1925, one Abdul Ghani, who was heavily in debt sold his share in the house in question to one Abdul Qaiyum. On 19th October 1926, Abdul Ghani himself applied for being adjudicated an insolvent and he was declared an insolvent on 21st. December 1926. On the following day, namely, 22nd December 1926, Abdul Qaiyum sold the property to the present defendant, Saiyid Hasan. On 25th June 1927. on an application made by the official receiver the sale deed of 2nd February 1925, which had been executed by the insolvent in favour of Abdul Qaiyum was annulled by the Court. In that proceeding Abdul Qaiyum alone had boon impleaded and did not appear, the subsequent transferee, Saiyid Hasan was not impleaded by the official receiver at all. After having obtained the order of annulment: the official receiver on 4th. August 1927, transferred the property ...
Ram Chandar Vs. Tiwari Hub Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All635; 155Ind.Cas.358
1. This is a second appeal by defendant 3 against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts which have granted the plaintiff-mortgagees a decree for sale on a mortgage of 21st June 1913, executed by one Lalla, who is defendant 1. The mortgage purported to be in regard to two of the former numbers, plots Nos. 50 and 51. We are concerned in the present suit only with plot No. 50 which is the present No. 85. It is found by the lower appellate Court that this number was one of seven numbers which formed the occupancy holding of defendant No. 1 and it was recorded as an occupancy holding in the papers of the settlement of 1872. The plot No. 50 is now occupied by 92 trees, of which 88 are mango trees standing in regular rows and the lower appellate Court has found that this plot is therefore grove-land and was a, grove at the time of the mortgage. The question which has been agitated in second appeal is that because the plot was originally part of an occupancy holding therefore the mortgage...
Bhagwandas Vs. Lakshmi Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All643; 155Ind.Cas.661
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for declaration as to the plain-tiff's ownership in a certain property. Munna Lal and his three sons were carrying on an ancestral business under the name of firm Gobind Ram Munna Lal and became heavily indebted. On the application of some of the creditors the firm was declared insolvent on 1st August 1922. In the application the firm had been described as the firm Gobind Ram Munna Lal through Munna Lal Radhe Lal and Brij Mohan, and the name of Arnolak Chand, the youngest son of Munna Lal, was somehow omitted from the application. But it is noteworthy that it was the firm itself which was adjudicated as insolvent and not the individual members of the family.2. The present defendant-appellant obtained a decree against the firm through the four persons on 14th November 1922. An objection had been taken in the suit that the defendants were insolvents and they could not be sued separately but the Court overruled that objection on the gro...
Sumaru Chamar Vs. Puddan Chamar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All975; 159Ind.Cas.352
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff to recover possession over the occupancy holding described in the plaint. Gulzar and Hulas were two brothers, and the occupancy tenancy in dispute belonged to them. The plaintiff Puddan is the grandson of Gulzar and succeeded to half of the tenancy through his grandfather. The plaintiff claimed the other half as the nearest reversioner of Hulas. Hulas had two sons Go pal and Khedan. The defendant is Khedan's daughter's son. The plaintiff's case was that, on the death of Mt. Jarao, widow of Sheopal, who was the son of Gopal, the plaintiff succeeded to the remaining half of the tenancy. On the death of Khedan, Khedan's one-fourth share also came to Sheopal. On Sheopal's-death, Sheopal's own share and Khedan's share, that is, half of the disputed tenancy was succeeded to by his widow Mt. Jarao. Mt. Jarao died about two years ago and, on her death, the plaintiff succeeded to the half...
Kailash Nath Vs. Pandit Chandra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.970
ORDERNiamat-Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, by the defendant, against a decree passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. The suit which gave rise to the revision was brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 394 and interest on the allegation that the parties to this case had agreed to take a joint contract from the Public Works Department at Jhansi, that the plaintiff paid Rs. 394 to the defendant, who was to contribute an equal amount and to deposit the whole as security in case the contract was given, that the money was deposited in the Public Works Department but the contract was not obtained and that the money was returned to the defendant, who is liable to refund what had been paid by the plaintiff. The plaint goes on to allege that four persons, including the parties to this case and one Banerji (the name of 4th person is not material) were concerned in a certain partnership, that a sui...
Sheo Pershad Misir Vs. Karim Bux and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All458; 157Ind.Cas.1019
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants to recover possession over a house described in the plaint. The plaintiffis case was that the house was purchased at an auction sale in 1895 by Jasodanand. Jasodanand obtained possession over it on 11th January 1896. The plaintiff claimed the house as This nephew and heir. The plaintiff stated that he had let the house to the defendants who had been occupying it as his tenants. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had never been in possession over the house. They admitted that Jasodanand had purchased the house but contended that he had dedicated it to an Imambara and that they were put in and have been an possession over it as a mutwalli. Both the Courts below found that no wakf was created. They also found that the defendants were not the plaintiff's tenants, but finding that the defendants had been in possession for more than 12 years the lower Court dismissed the plai...
Dwarka Prasad and anr. Vs. Mt. Sunder
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All546; 155Ind.Cas.1037
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge, Farrukhabad, in circumstances which are somewhat peculiar. The order appealed from was passed in appeal from the order of the Sub' ordinate Judge sitting as an insolvency Judge. Murli and Shazade were adjudged insolvent by the insolvency Court at Cawnpore, and a receiver was appointed to take charge of their assets. The house, which is now in dispute, is situate in Farrukhabad, and was claimed by the receiver as the property of the insolvents. The appellants in this Court deny the title of the insolvents and claim to be the owners of the house in dispute. They preferred an objection in the insolvency Court at Cawnpore putting forward their claim and denying the right of the insolvents. The application and the order of the Court thereon could not be traced. The appellants allege that the only order which the Court passed was 'file without consideration.' The respondent, on the other hand, alleges tha...
Sukhdeo Vs. Donger and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All588
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages and for a perpetual injunction restraining the first two defendants from irrigating their fields from the well in dispute. The plaintiff himself is the decree-holder who held a simple money decree against, Dongar and others, but not against defendant 2, Narain Lal. In execution of that decree he attached the well in question and put it up for sale and it west purchased by Bhupal. Objections raised by the judgment-debtors that the well was a part, of their Occupancy, holding had been in a summary way ever ruled by the execution Court. The present plaintiff has not purchased the well from Bhupal. He has brought the suit against the judgment-debtor, Danger, as well as defendant; 2, Narain Lai. making Dhupal a proforma defendant. His case is that his predecessor Bhupal acquired this well under the auction-purchase, and the defendants were wrongly interfering with his possession and using water from it. Defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »