Allahabad Court April 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.
(Firm) Ram Prasad-thakur Prasad Vs. (Firm) Kamta Prasad-sita Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All898; 157Ind.Cas.154
Kendall, J.1. This application has raised a technical question in connection with the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. The plaintiff, purporting to be a firm, entered a plaint on 27th. October 1933, which was admitted and registered on 28th November. On 23rd March 1934, be made an application to amend, the plaint after having obtained a certificate to the effect that the firm had been registered in accordance with Section 59 of the Act. The plaint was, amended accordingly, after which the written statement was filed in which the objection was raised that the suit, as framed, was barred by Section 69 of the Act. The trial Court appears to have rejected the plaint, giving as a reason that it was admitted by the plaintiff that the firm was not registered when the suit was filed.2. It has been argued in the first place that this statement of the Court is incorrect, as the plaintiff never admitted that the firm had not been registered when the suit was filed. It has now been proved by an aff...
Ahmad Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Riyasat Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All862
Sulaiman, C.J.1. I concur in the order proposed. No doubt there are several classes of pensions and those falling under Section 7 are not subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 6, Pensions Act, (Act 23) of 1871. It is also true that the burden is on the defendants to show that the pension in dispute in this case was of the class mentioned in Sections 11 and 12. But inasmuch as it has been assumed throughout in all the Courts that this was a political pension of the nature to which Section 12 would be applicable, I would prefer not to base my decision on the ground that this has not been established by the defendants.2. In the same way I have considerable difficulty in holding that even if the withdrawal of the claim to the political pension in the former suit was in fact an invalid and void offer, the counter promise is enforceable. So far as the Indian Contract Act, is concerned, all considerations and objects of an agreement are unlawful which are of such a nature that if permit...
Emperor Vs. Sri Kishan (or Sri Krishna)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All970; 159Ind.Cas.621
ORDER1. The opposite party to this reference was tried before the Temporary Sessions Judge of the Allahabad District sitting with a Jury for an offence under Section 408, Penal Code, the allegation being that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain moneys entrusted to him in his capacity as a clerk or servant of the Kayestha Pathshala Intermediate College. He was found not guilty by the Jury, but the Sessions Judge refused to accept the verdict. He was of opinion that the case against the opposite party had been established beyond all shadow of doubt and that it was necessary in the interests of justice to refer the matter to this Court for such orders as this Court might deem proper in the circumstances.2. This High Court has undoubted jurisdiction to disregard the verdict of the jury and to convict the opposite party if it is of opinion that the verdict of the Jury was perverse and it is the case for the Crown in this reference that the verdict returned by the...
Hanuman Prasad and anr. Vs. Mendwa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All836; 158Ind.Cas.519
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents to claim Rs. 600 damages and for an injunction restraining the defendants from ever raising their dam and sluices to such an extent that the level of water under the plaintiffs' hydro flour mills may become less than eleven inches from the last stair of the ghat and to order the defendants to lower down their dam and sluices. The plaintiffs' case was that they are the zamindars of mahal Sarju Prasad, village Kapseti, through which the river Paisuni flows. They have had their water mills on the bank for the Last 20 years which are worked by the stream. The defendants have also got their mills in village Bankat two miles down on the bank of the same river. In September 1929, the defendants raised their dam and sluices thereby sending back the water and causing obstruction to the working of the plaintiffs' mills. The water had accumulated under the plaintiffs' hydro fl...
Mt. Shyama Vs. Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All840; 158Ind.Cas.421
Allsop, J.1. The appellant Mt. Shyama is said to be a minor about 17 or 18 years of age. She was married to the respondent Shanker. The latter made an application that he should be appointed guardian of Mt. Shyama and that she should be placed in his custody under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act. The learned Judge does not appear to have intended to pass any order on the subject of appointing Shanker as the guardian of the minor, but he has passed an order that she should be delivered up to Shanker whom he treats as her natural guardian.2. The appellant is now living with her father Sukh Lal. She was married to Shanker in the year 1929 and lived with him unhappily for a period of about three months. She then went home to her father and stayed with him for three years. In the meanwhile there were a series of panchayats and eventually the respondent appeared at one of these in December 1932. He promised not to ill-treat the girl and was fined a small sum of money. The girl was then r...
Shiam Sunder Lal and ors. Vs. Mt. Savitri Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All723; 157Ind.Cas.150
ORDER1. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs not having paid the costs incurred by the Government in opposing an application made by them to sue in forma pauperis were entitled to maintain the present suit.2. There is no doubt that before filing the present suit the plaintiffs did not pay the costs of the Government or of the opposite party in opposing their application to sue in forma pauperis. The learned District Judge who decided the case in the lower appellate Court has held that the provisions of Order 33, Rule 15, Civil P.C., are mandatory and inasmuch as the plaintiffs had failed to pay the costs incurred by the Government or the opposite party the suit ought to have been dismissed. The learned District Judge felt himself bound in this matter to follow the statement of the law contained in the judgment of a Bench of this Court in a case reported in Mahadeo Sahai v. Secy. of State 1932 All. 312. In the course of that judgment their Lordships who decided...
Bishan Sarup Vs. Musa Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All817
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer to me as Taxing judge under Section 5 Court-fees Act. The reference embraces two matters : firstly, whether the court-fee paid on the memorandum of S.A. No. 51 of 1933 by the plaintiff-appellant is sufficient, and secondly, whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff in the trial Court and in the lower appellate Court is sufficient. Learned Counsel has argued that on the strength of a ruling of a Bench of this Court, of which I was a member in Mitthu Lal v. Chameli : AIR1934All805 , the jurisdiction in regard to the alleged insufficiency of the court-fees in the lower Court lies with a Bench under Section 12(2), Court-fees Act. I accept that view. The jurisdiction of the Taxing Officer to make a reference under Section 5 Court-fees Act, is in regard to the payment of the court-fee in the High Court. This section shows that the question relates only to this Court as the section uses the words 'any fee under this chapter.' Chapt...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Raghunandan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All848; 158Ind.Cas.623
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by a person who calls himself a defendant. This however is admittedly a mistake for 'decree-holder.' The decree-holder attached certain utensils belonging to the judgment-debtor and the judgment-debtor objected that these were exempt under Section 60(1)(b) as the tools of an artisan. The lower Court allowed the objection on the ground that a sweetmeat vendor was an artisan when he prepared the sweetmeats himself personally. I understand this finding means that these utensils are used by the judgment-debtor for preparing sweets. There is therefore no question of an abandonment by the judgment-debtor of his occupation. Learned Counsel relied merely on the statement that he was now employed in service at a shop and formerly had been a shop-keeper. He is apparently employed for the purpose of making sweets. The next argument was that such a person would not be an artisan and learned Counsel relied on a ruling in Emperor v. Haji Shaik Mah...
(Firm) Makhan Lal Lachmi NaraIn Vs. (Firm) Abhai Ram Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All886
1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of the Court below filing an agreement of reference to arbitration. The application was rather a belated one and was filed on 12th May 1933, on the strength of an agreement of reference to arbitration, dated 12th May 1930. The agreement was not filed along with the application, but it was stated that it had been given to the head arbitrator. Certain terms of the agreement were mentioned in para. 6 of the plaint. The defendant admitted only a part of para. 6 and did not admit the rest of the allegations containing the terms of the agreement. The fact that an agreement of reference to arbitration had been entered into was admitted. It was pleaded that, as the original agreement was not forthcoming, it could not be ordered to be filed. There was a further plea that the person who had agreed on behalf of the defendant had no authority to do so.2. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the 'Pairokar' of the defendant had authority to ac...
Ram Gir Vs. Ravisaran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All883
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision. The Joint Magistrate of Benares, dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C., two complaints which were made by the applicant. The applicant is a goshain who has an interest in a temple in the village of Kaithi. There has been a dispute between the goshains and the zemindars of that village over their rights in this temple. I am told that the Subordinate Judge has decided that the parties both have rights but his decision is the subject of an appeal in this Court. The complaints were that the zemindars had forcibly removed the applicant's lock from a room in the temple and had removed certain articles which were used for the purposes of the temple and when the applicant interfered that he was beaten and insulted by having his beard pulled.2. The Joint Magistrate made local enquiries and came to the conclusion that the story was not true. It was obviously in any case a matter which seems to have been more or less of a civil nature. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »