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.
Bandan Kurmi Vs. Bindra Kurmi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All790; 158Ind.Cas.620
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the removal of a kolhu or sugar mill from plot No. 354 and for possession of the land lying under-neath it. There was a also a prayer for a perpetual injunction. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the zamindar of the plot: in suit. The trial Court gave him a decree. One of the defences was that the kolhu had been in existence for more than 12 years. Both Courts below have found that it has not been in existence for more than five or six years. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the application of the principles of order 2, Rule 2, Schedule 1, Civil P.C.2. In the year 1931 the plaintiff instituted a suit No. 3 of that year, in which he asked for the removal of certain other constructions on plot No. 354. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has found that this kolhu was in existence at the time when the suit of 1931 was instituted and he has held that the plaintiff should hav...
Tika Ram Vs. Sobha Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All855
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent for damages for mental worry anxiety and disgrace caused by the defendant's enticing away the plaintiff's wife. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,800 as damages for disgrace and mental pain. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the suit was time barred. The trial Court found that the defendant enticed away the plaintiff's wife and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 400 with full costs. The decree was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal.2. As already stated, the plaintiff has claimed damages for only mental pain and disgrace. In an action for seduction, the plaintiff must prove : (1) that the female seduced was in his service actual or constructive, at the time of seduction, otherwise there is no injuria; (2) that by reason of the act complained of or otherwise he was deprived of her services, otherwise there is no damnum, and b...
Ajodhiya Pande Vs. Mt. Rajna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All845; 158Ind.Cas.888
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by a defendant under the following circumstances : The opposite party Mt. Rajna was one of the plaintiffs in a suit asking for possession of an occupancy holding on the grounds that she was the daughter of Madho. who died sometime previous to Act 2 of 1901, that Madho had been succeeded by two widows both of whom died during the pendency of Act 2 of 1901, the last widow dying in the year 1924 and that the defendants had interfered with her possession. The defendant-appellant based his claim on two grounds, firstly that he was related to Madho and entitled to succeed Madho as a reversioner and secondly, that he was one of the zamindars, and he claimed that Mt. Rajna was not entitled to succeed to this occupancy tenancy on the death of the last widow in the year 1924. The case raises difficult points of interpretation of Section 22 of Act 2 of 1901. The learned Single Judge has held against the appellant. Various rulings have been cited and it...
imam Baksh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All903; 158Ind.Cas.919
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Additional Magistrate of Almora, dismissing the applicants appeal from their convictions by the Magistrate and sentences of fine imposed upon them. The applicants are butchers who used to keep stalls in the municipal market of Almora but ultimately left that market, shifted outside the municipal limits and opened meat stalls within a mile of the municipal limits. Under a notification published in the Government Gazette of 1st October 1932, the provisions of Section 245, Municipalities Act, were extended by the Commissioner, to whom the power had been delegated by the Local Government. In the notification the words actually used are that the limits of the board are extended, etc., but there is no doubt that what was intended was that the provisions of Section 245 were being made applicable to this extended area, inasmuch as that particular section was actually quoted in the notification.2. The notice of this exten...
Kunwar Sen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All620; 157Ind.Cas.119
ORDERKendall, J.1. The present applicant was convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Sub-section (2), Section 126, District Boards Act, and fined Rs. 55. When lie appealed to the Sessions Judge it was held that Section 126 of the Act did not strictly apply, but that the applicant had committed an offence under Section 179, Penal Code. The circumstances are given sufficiently fully in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. It has been argued in. appeal that Section 179, Penal Code, does not apply because the applicant was not 'legally bound to state the truth.' The only legal obligation that has been suggested, to this Court is that referred to in Section 126, District Boards Act, under which:The Board may by written communication call upon any person specified...to furnish such information as may be necessary in order to ascertain(a) whether such person is liable to pay taxes on his land or property;(b) on what amount he should be assessed;(c) the actual value building or land ...
Munna Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All630; 157Ind.Cas.123
ORDERKendall, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether the applicants have a right of appeal, They were all charged under two sections of the Indian Penal Code, 323 and 427. 'But the Magistrate in passing his final order said : 'The charge is brought home to the accused.... I fine each of them Rs. 50.' The applicants appealed to the Sessions Judge, who held that no appeal lay because the applicants had only been fined Rs. 50, so that under Section 413, Criminal P.C. they could not take the matter further. It has been argued that this decision of the learned Sessions Judge is wrong, and that Section 413 read with Section 415, Criminal P.C. will so operate as to give the applicants a right of appeal. The argument is that as the applicants were charged with two offences and have not been acquitted of either and as the finding is one that the applicants are guilty, it follows that both charges have been brought home to them and that, the sentence of fine imposed must be deemed to b...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Nihal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All675; 157Ind.Cas.41
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,000 lent by him to the defendant on 19th February 1927, together with interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per cent per mensem. The defence inter alia was that the plaintiff was an undischarged insolvent, and was not entitled to sue. The Courts below have overruled the objection and decreed the claim. In second appeal the Division Bench before which the case came up for disposal referred the following question to a Full Bench:Whether the plaintiff, in view of the fact that he is an undischarged insolvent, is entitled to maintain the present suit.2. As in several rulings, the rule of law prevailing in England has been frequently invoked, it may be convenient to point out at the outset that in England some distinction has undoubtedly been drawn between property which was owned by the insolvent at the time of his adjudication and property which is acquired by him afterwards. Following certa...
Parsotam Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All769; 158Ind.Cas.39
ORDERKendall, J.1. These two applications for revision have been made by Parsotam Das and Murli Dhar and Gulzari from two separate appellate orders passed by the Sessions Judge, Muttra, on two appeals against, one, judgment of a First Class Magistrate by which the applicants were sentenced : Gulzari to one year's simple imprisonment, and the other two applicants to a fine of Rs. 100 each, under Sections 500 and 501, Penal Code. The circumstances briefly are that a notice was printed on 19th July 1934, which was said to contain matter defamatory of the complainant. This notice was published on 20th July and distributed on 21st. The printers of the notice were the applicants. Parsotam Das and Murlidhar, and they were therefore charged under Section 501, while the other applicant Gulzar was charged with publishing and distributing the notice, which wias said to be an offence under Section 500, Penal Code. The applications were made on various grounds, but the principal ground was that the...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Tinke Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All815
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Chhotey Lal against the order of the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur, transferring the applicant's case from the Court of Mirza Sultan Ahmad Beg, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, to that of Mr. Frank Rawat, Magistrate, Frist Class, Shahjahanpur. Two grounds have been taken by the applicant : (1) that no notice was given to the applicant before the order of transfer, and (2) that the District Magistrate had no power to review his former order. Though Section 528, Criminal P.C. does not provide for any notice to the opposite party, yet it has been laid down by all the High Courts that it is desirable that a notice should be given to the opposite party before an order of transfer is passed. At the same time, it has been held by several High Courts that a mere omission to give notice will not make the order illegal and would be no ground to set aside the order. The omission to give notice is a mere irregularity and is ...
Ghafoor and ors. Vs. Abdullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All923; 157Ind.Cas.521
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent for an agricultural holding. The suit was decreed and the defendants are appellants before me. In the year 1919 the defendants who were zamindars mortgaged their proprietary rights and became ex-proprietary tenants of a certain area of sir, i.e., the area in suit. An application was apparently made by the mortgagee to the Revenue Court to fix the rent according to an agreement into which the parties had entered. That agreement was evidenced by a kabuliyat executed by the defendants. The Court wrote an order saying that the nature of the tenancy should be changed and the rent should be entered in accordance with the kabuliat. After 1919 the defendants continued to pay rent at the rate fixed, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 96 a year. Then the suit was instituted which has given rise to this appeal. The defendants in the written statement did not raise the plea that they were not bound to pay rent at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »