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.
Bhagwan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All745; 155Ind.Cas.1070
ORDERKendall, J.1. This application for revision arises out of the following circumstance. The applicant filed a complaint under Section 448, Penal Code, against Lala Budh Prakash, an Honorary Magistrate, on 29th October 1934. The Magistrate in whose Court it was filed did not examine the complainant on oath, but ordered an enquiry by the Police, and on November 5, a report was received that the complaint was false and that proceedings ought to be taken to file a complaint under Section 182 Penal Code. The Magistrate, therefore issued notice to the complainant for his appearance to show cause against such a complaint on November 30. Without going into details, it maybe said that the record shows that this notice was not served on the present applicant. The Magistrate, howewer, took up the case on November 30, and in the absence of the applicant, passed an order in which he directed a complaint to be made against the; applicant under Sections 182 and 211 Penal Code.2. An appeal was file...
Rafiq Ahmad and anr. Vs. H. Mohammad Siraj HussaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.48
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by plaintiff Mohammad Siraj Husain Khan for partition of the materials of the house standing on the land described in the plaint. The site belonged to the plaintiff. In 1905, Amir Bakhsh, father of Nanua, defendant-appellant, took the land from the plaintiff's father under a registered kabuliyat on January 30, 1905. It was provided in this kabuliyat that no other person would be allowed to reside in the house without the permission of the zemindar. On the death of Amir Bakhsh, the house was succeeded to by Amir Bakhsh's daughter and his son Nanua. Amir Bakhsh's daughter sold her 1-3rd share in the materials of the house to the plaintiff. Nanua sold his 2-3rd share in the materials to the defendant-appellant No. 1. The plaintiff brought a suit for the partition of his 1-3rd share in the materials and for the removal of the 2-3rd materials by defendant No. 1 and for possession over the site. The p...
Tek Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All638; 157Ind.Cas.413
ORDERKendall, J.1. The applicant, Tek Chand, was ordered by a First Class Magistrate to provide a personal bond, and sureties under Section 118, Criminal P.C. because he was found to be a desperate and. dangerous character within the meaning of Clause (f), Section 110, Criminal P.C. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the order in appeal. I am asked to interfere for more than one reason.2. The first point taken is that, as the learned Judge has remarked, the proceedings against the applicant were an off-shoot of what was called the Agra Conspiracy Case in which one Bachcha Babu and several others were prosecuted under the Arms Act for conspiracy and for other offences. In that case the accused were convicted in the Sessions Court on 19th February 1934, but all of them except Bachcha Babu were acquitted by the High Court on appeal on 26th November 1934. The Sessions Judge passed orders in the present case on 24th July 1934, i.e., before the appellate decision of the High Court. It has...
Ram Deo Kurmi Vs. Ram Rathi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All742; 157Ind.Cas.668
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that the sale deed, dated 11th April 1910, executed by Bisheshar Kurmi in favour of Narain Kurmi, father of defendant-respondent No. 1, was invalid. The plaintiff is the grandson of Bisbeshar Kurmi. Bisheshar Kurmi had two sons, Budhu and Sidhu living with him at the time of the sale deed. Ramdeo, plaintiff-appellant, was born sometime in 1919, long after the sale deed. The plaintiff's case was that the sale was mot for any valid necessity and was invalid. Defendant 1 contended that the sale was for valid necessity, that the plaintiff had no right of suit and that the suit was time-barred. The trial Court found that out of the consideration of Rs. 100, only Rs. 10 were paid for a legal necessity, but it dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff having not been born on the date of the sale was not competent to challenge it. On appeal, the A...
Ram Krishna Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All746
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a reference by the learned. Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad recommending that the order passed by a Magistrate fining the applicant, Ram Krishna, Rs. 25 under section 283, Penal Code, be set aside. The circumstances are given in the order of reference. I am however by no means satisfied that the Magistrate was wrong in holding that there had been an offence under Section 283, Penal Code. The Sessions Judge has remarked that the placing of a charpoy on a public road does not amount to a public nuisance if there is no intention of obstructing traffic. Section 283 however does not refer either to a public nuisance or to the intention of the accused. It is one of the sections in Ch. 14 of the Code which deals with, offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals, and the learned Judge has quoted from Dr. Gour's Penal Law of India, para. 2675:The act contemplated may be of any kind, but it must be an act of positive commission involving...
Ram NaraIn Sahu and anr. Vs. Mt. Makhna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All875
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought by Ram Narain and his son Lachhmi Narain for a declaration that they are-the owners in possession of the property specified at the foot of the plaint and that Mt. Makhna, defendant-respondent, who is the widow of Deo Narain, the own brother of Ram Narain, had no right or title to the same.2. The cardinal question for decision in the case was whether Deo Narain was joint with or separate from his brother Ram Narain on the date of his death in the year 1927. If Deo Narain died as a separated Hindu, as held by the Court below, Mt. Makhna became entitled to the properties owned by him by right of inheritance and the plaintiffs had no right to the same. There were some disputed questions of fact in the Court below, but the findings of the Court below on those points have not been assailed, and the whole controversy in this appeal has hovered over the question as to what was the legal effect on the status of Ram Narain and Deo ...
Miru and ors. Vs. Ramgopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All891
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants from the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court. The plaintiff is the sole zamindar of a certain mahal and in his plaint he sets out that Rahim Bakhsh formerly occupied a khasra plot No. 119 in the abadi and Rahim Bakhsh made a katcha platform on the said plot for offering prayers, and that this was the condition of affairs at the time of the partition in 1904, that there was no pacca or katcha mosque in the said plot, and that the defendants now desire to make a pucca mosque on the plot. The plaintiff therefore asked for an injunction against the defendants to restrain them from constructing any katcha or pucca mosque in this plot. The written statement alleged that there had always existed a katcha mosque on the plot in question, that in the last rainy season before the suit, which was brought in 1929, the mosque required repairs and the defendants demolished the mosque and dug up the foundations and desired to rebuild ...
Parshadi Lal Vs. Chandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All915
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and the other respondents by the plaintiff to recover his produce and in the alternative its price. The appellant had a decree against defendants 4 and 5, in execution of which he got attached, the produce of the plaintiff-respondent. On the responsibility of the appellant, the produce was put in the custody of the Shahanas, defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff filed an objection to the attachment which was allowed and the attachment was removed. Thereafter the defendant-appellant brought a suit under Order 21 Rule 63, Civil P.C., for declaration that the property was liable for attachment and sale in execution of his decree and that it belonged to his judgment-debtor defendants 4 and 5. The suit was dismissed. The property continued in the custody of the appellant's Shahanas. The plaintiff brought this suit to get back his produce. The defendant-appellant contended that the plaintiff had got back t...
Gulzari Lal Vs. Sheo Charan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All889
1. This purports to be a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a Judge of this Court dismissing what had been styled by the appellant an execution second appeal which the learned Judge thought should have been headed as a second appeal from order. It appears that the decree-holder held a simple mortgage decree against certain judgment-debtors and attached some property alleging that it belonged to his judgment-debtors. This property was put up for sale and was purchased at auction by the contesting respondents. No application for setting aside the sale was made within 30 days by the auction-purchaser with the result that the sale was ultimately confirmed by the Court. Subsequently a third party brought a suit for a declaration that the property which had been attached and put up for sale had not belonged to the judgment-debtors at all but is his own property. To this the auction-purchaser was made a party. The suit was decreed and it was held that the property had not belonged to the ...
NaraIn Das Vs. Pandit Permanand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.351
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from two shops and two rooms of which he was the lessee under the terms of an agreement dated August 18, 1927. The covenant was that the lease should be deemed to have commenced on June 17, 1927, that rent should be paid at the rate of Rs. 610 a year, but that two years' rent should be paid in advance. A sum of Rs. 70 had been paid before the document was executed and registered. A further sum of Rs. 450 was paid at the time of registration. There was left for payment a sum of Rs. 90 on account of advance of rent for one year and the sum of Rs. 610 for the advance of rent for the second year. Under the agreement, the sum of Rs. 90 was to be paid on January 14, 1928, and the sum of Rs. 610 on April 15, 1928. Thereafter rent was to be paid each year in the month of Asarh for 10 years. The rent of the last two years was to be set off as it became due against the advance. Sometime after the agreement wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »