Allahabad Court March 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.
Khazan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.168
Kendall, J.1. The appellant, Khazan Singh, has been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Meerut of an offence under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300. Five persona were put on their trial in the Sessions Court on a charge under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, but it was altered to one under Section 368, Indian Penal Code, in that Court as against the accused other than Nos. 1 and 2. The story for the prosecution was that Musammat Tejo was enticed away from her husband in 1931. She was then a girl of about 14, if the finding of the Assistant Sessions Judge that she was 17 when this case was brought into Court is correct. The people who were said to have enticed her on this occasion were Musammat Lachmi and Shib Sahai, and according to the evidence of the girl, Shib Sahai ill-treated her and attempted to persuade her to transfer her land to him. He afterwards took her away to the house of Hukam Si...
Bhagwat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All592; 157Ind.Cas.545
Kendall, J.1. The three appellants, Bhagwat, Ram Lal and Chhangur, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur of an offence under Section 395 Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each. The story for the prosecution is that on the night between 13th and 14th April 1934, some 15 or 16 dacoits armed with lathis broke into the house of Sarju and his brother Mahant, and plundered the house and beat the occupants as well as some of the neighbours. Kumar Sukhai and Sundar, who came to their help. Subsequently the dacoits made their escape, and a report was made at the t.hana 14 miles away by Mahant on the following day at 4 p.m. This report does not mention the names of any decoits who had been recognised, though Mahant stated that he could identify them if he were to see them. He added a list of property stolen, which is very insignificant, and when the investigating officer went to the village the same evening a list giving details of some more p...
Ziaul Hasan Vs. Aziz Ahmed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All896
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application praying that the proceedings should be taken against the opposite party for contempt of the Court of the Magistrate inasmuch as in his answers to the interrogatories served on him he stated that the Chief Reader had friendly relations and influence over the Court which acted dishonestly and imposed a fine of Rs. 40. This is clearly a defamatory statement against the presiding officer, which would be a criminal offence under the Penal Code and for which the officer concerned has a remedy by way of filing a complaint. I would not take cognizance of this offence as one falling under the Contempt of Courts Act....
Ashfaq Ali Khan Vs. Inayat Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All704; 155Ind.Cas.1103
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for profits by an assignee from the cosharer. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The only point argued in the lower appellate Court was that the plaintiff was not entitled to institute a suit until he had made a report under Section 34, Land Revenue Act, asking for mutation of the register. Other grounds of appeal were mentioned in the memorandum to the Court below but they were not argued. This may have been due to the fact that the Court below made it clear that it was with the appellant on, the point on which the appellant succeeded.2. The first question is whether the learned District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff had no right to sue until he had made the report required under Section 34. I have no doubt that the learned Judge was not right. The suit was in respect of the profits for the years 1333 to 1335 Fasli. These profits were transferred to the plain...
Raja Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1934All691
ORDERKendall, J.1. This application has been argued by Mr. Kapildev Malaviya on the ground that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have both given a value to two statements admitted under Section 288, Criminal P.C. to which they are not entitled by law. The facts of the case are given fully in the judgment of the lower appellate Court.2. The principal evidence for the prosecution was that of the complainant, Suggan, who was poisoned and the two bakers Ram Chander and Khazan, who were attracted to the dharamshala by the cries of the poisoned man, and who testified to finding the present applicant Raja Ram, who is a boy of 16, m the dhasamshala, together with the complainant Suggan, while the other person who had accompanied the applicant to the dharamshala ran away. The case for the prosecution was that the applicant was in league with this person who had escaped to administer poison to Suggan in order to rob him. The argument is that if the statements admitted under Section ...
Govind Prasad and anr. Vs. Shanti Swarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All778; 155Ind.Cas.1106
1. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was brought by Shanti Swarup, respondent, for a declaration that the preliminary and the final decrees for foreclosure passed in suit No. 92 of 1930, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore in favour of the contesting defendants are a nullity and not binding on him. The said decrees were for the foreclosure of a mortgage-deed dated 22nd June 1928, executed by Chhadammi La,l the grandfather and Jagannath Prasad the father of Shanti Swarup plaintiff-respondent. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 7,000 and was in favour of the contesting defendants.2. Chhadammi Lal, Jagannath and Shanti Swarup were impleaded as defendants in the foreclosure suit. Shanti Swarup was a minor, and his father Jagannath Prasad was appointed as his guardian for the suit. The plaintiff-respondent assailed the validity of the decrees mentioned above on the ground that Jagamnath being himself one of the executants of the mortgage-deed was not in a position to r...
Emperor Vs. Parshottam Kandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All986; 159Ind.Cas.513
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending that the convictions of Parshottam Kandu under Sections 185 and 307, Municipalities Act, be set aside. The reference proceeded on the assumption that a mistake had been committed by the chairman of the Municipal Board in granting a conditional sanction to the applicant for re-erecting a wall of his house which was close to a lane, and that the chairman had no power to direct that the applicant before rebuilding his wall should leave a space of 9 feet to the south-west of the wall. The case came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court who was inclined to take the same view, but in view of certain conflict of opinion in this Court referred it to a Division Bench.2. If we were to assume in favour of the applicant that he was trying to erect an old wall and not erect any building, then there might have possibly been something to be said in his favour, as Section 178 requires a notice in ca...
Mt. Dhanpatti Vs. Badri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All729
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing their appeal. The defendants have lost their case throughout. The case began as a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector for enhancement of rent. The plaint set out that the plaintiffs are the recorded zamindars of the whole village of mauza Alupur and that the defendants are exproprietary tenants in the village of an area of 21.71 acres consisting of 64 plots; that the former rent of the land was Rs. 47-1-8 and enhancement is asked. The defence was that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties, and that Bandhan Singh, husband of Mt. Dhanpatti, defendant 1, and his brother sold their zamindari property under different sale deeds, but the sir plots, grove, house, pond and pasture were excluded from the sale deeds and the vendors remained in possession and occupation of these items of property as absolute owners and that...
Sahdeo Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All579
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision on behalf of one Sahdeo Ram, who has been convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 377, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, 12 stripes and a fine of Rs. 100 or in default four months' further rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and his appeal was dismissed. This revision is filed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge. The facts found by the Sessions Court were that a small boy Modan aged six and a half years was playing with another boy at the house of the accused and that the accused took him into a room and committed the offence of sodomy on him and the boy Modan was seen by two witnesses to> run out of the house of the accused weeping, and the boy went to his father and told his father his story and took his father with a constable to the house of the accused and the boy pointed out the house and a head constable was called and the boy pointed out the accused and the ac...
Durjan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All655; 157Ind.Cas.1091
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This criminal revision is connected with criminal revision No. 16 of 1935. The facts are similar and the-points at issue are the same. I propose to dispose of both these revisions by this order.2. The two applicants, Ghasi Ram and Durjan, have each been fined a sum of Rs. 30 under Section 299(1), Municipalities Act, for infringement of a bye-law of the Notified Area Committee of Mahoba. This bye-law is to the effect that no person may ply the trade of a weighman without obtaining a licence. The facts found in these two cases are that one Ram Nath sold some grain to the two applicants and that they weighed it themselves without, employing a professional weighman. In consideration of not employing a weighman they demanded and obtained from, the vendor the commission which the weighman would have received. It would be possible to raise a number of questions in connexion with these applications such as the validity of the bye-law and so forth; but for the decision in thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »