Allahabad Court August 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.
B. Nihal Chand and anr. Vs. Mt. Bhagwan Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1002
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for the closing up of a large window in the upper storey opened recently by the defendants, on the ground that her right of privacy was infringed inasmuch as her courtyard and house were overlooked. The First Court dismissed the suit relying mainly on certain observations made in the case of Bhagwan Das v. Zamurrad Husain 1929 All. 676; but the lower appellate Court has reversed that decree holding that the right of privacy, based on social custom and parda system, is quite different from the right of, privacy biased on natural modesty and human morality, and that the latter is not confined to any class, creed, colour, or race, and it is the birthright of a human being and is sacred and should be observed, though the right should not be exercised in an oppressive way. That decree has been affirmed by the learned Judge of this Court.2. In appeal the learned Counsel for the defendants has first u...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All12; 160Ind.Cas.884
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Narain Singh against the Older of the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri disallowing his application to deduct the period between 4th November 1931 and 27th February 1935, from the term of his sentence of imprisonment. It is a very curious case in which after the dismissal of the applicant's appeal he remained unarrested from 4th November 1931 to 27th February 1935. The applicant was convicted sunder Section 395, I.P.C., and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on '29th April 1931. He was released on bail on 2nd May 1931 by this Court. His appeal was dismissed on 4th November 1931, and an order was passed that he would surrender forthwith to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentence. It does not appear under what circumstances he was not arrested. He did not surrender himself as he was ordered to do. On 14th February 1935, the was arrested. On his objection he was...
Pearey Lal Vs. Mt. Naraini
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All977; 159Ind.Cas.308
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Pearey Lal against the order of Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan Khalil, Magistrate, First Class, Meerut, under Section 488, Criminal P.C. This order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut in revision. The opposite party Mt. Naraini, wife of the applicant, obtained an order under Section 488, Criminal P.C., for maintenance on 11th March 1932, against the applicant. The applicant made an application stating that he was willing to take his wife back, but it was rejected. Mt. Naraini lived for sometime thereafter with her husband and when she was turned out again by her husband she went to live with her sister. In 1935 she made an application to recover the maintenance (Rs. 4 a month) which had been allowed to her under the order of 11th March 1932. The applicant contested this application on the mere ground that Mt. Naraini had been living in adultery and therefore was not entitled to any maintenance. Both the parties produc...
Jagannath Vs. Bhikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1047
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. His suit was decreed by the Court of first instance, but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment of two defendants Bhikam Singh and Ram Chandar Singh from plot No. 321 on the allegation that the defendants were non-occupancy tenants of the said plot. It was further distinctly mentioned in the plaint that the defendants held the land claimed as grove-holders and as the grove had been cut down therefore the defendants as non-occupancy tenants were liable to be ejected. Ram Chander pleaded that the possession of the defendants was that of a proprietor. Bhikam Singh pleaded that the land in dispute was muafi given in charity to the contesting defendant which was purchased at a sale by public auction by Nand Lai Singh, the maternal grandfather of the contesting defendant, and after the death of Nand Lal Singh, the contesting defendant be...
Emperor Vs. NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.906
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Narain Singh against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri disallowing his application to deduct the period between November 4, 1931, and February 27, 1935, from the term of his sentence of imprisonment. It is a very curious case in which after the dismissal of the applicant's appeal he remained unarrested from November 4, 1931, to February 27, 1935. The applicant was convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, on April 29, 1931. He was released on bail on May 2, 193-1, by this Court. His appeal was dismissed on November 4, 1931, and an order was passed that he would surrender forthwith to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentence. It does not appear under what circumstances he was not arrested. He did not surrender himself as he was ordered to do. On February 14, 1935, he was arrested. On his objection he was ...
Ganga Singh and ors. Vs. Kr. Jitwar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1014; 159Ind.Cas.441
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The facts of this case, at least those which can engage the attention of this Court, are similar to the facts in Civil Revision No. 627 of 1934, and my decision in this case will govern my decision in the other revision as well.2. It appears that Kunwar Jitwar Singh brought a suit for preemption against Ganga Singh; Sughar Singh, Deo Singh and Mt. Pariharin. The last defendant was the vendor and as such a proforma defendant. At one stage the plaintiff and Ganga Singh and Deo Singh referred their dispute to arbitration. Sughar Singh, defendant, 2, was a Sub-Inspector at a different place and proceedings against him were ex-parte and he neither filed a written statement nor engaged any counsel nor was he a signatory to the deed of reference. The Court however referred the matter to arbitration and the arbitral or decided that the plaintiff's suit ought to be dismissed.3. On this it war Singh the plaintiff filed objections before the Court below and prayed that the award...
Nek Mohammad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All83
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The applicants were convicted by a Special Magistrate of the 1st class under Section 299, Municipalities Act (Local Act 2 of 1916) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. The conviction and sentence were upheld in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. In the present application before me it is contended that the conviction is illegal. It appears that the four applicants were taking four carts loaded with dried ginger from a place called Kalpi and they passed through the Municipal limits of Saharanpur on their way to Tapri, a railway station, for the purpose of sending the goods to Delhi. It is said that they did not pay the toll tax and as such they were guilty of a breach of rule framed by the Local Government for the Saharanpur Municipality. Section 299, Municipalities Act, provides that in making a rule the Local Government...may direct that a breach of it shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500. The power to make rules is given to the Local...
Jai Datt Tewari Vs. Daya Ram Pant and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All78; 160Ind.Cas.912
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor was one Bhola Datt, son of Trilochan, born admittedly of a wedded wife of Triloehan. The vendee is a stranger to the family, and the plaintiff is Jai Datt, who is the son of Trilochan born of a dhanti woman. Both the plaintiff and the vendee are co-sharers on an equal footing, both apparently residing in the same village. The plaintiff claimed preference over the vendee on the ground that he was the brother of the vendor. The defendant in his written statement did not admit this fact and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is not a legitimate son of Triloehan who belonged to a caste in which sons by a dhanti wife had no right of inheritances and that the plaintiff being the son of a dhanti wife could not claim kinship with the vendor. The trial Court framed an issue as to whether the plaintiff was a legitimate brother of the vendor and also as to whether, if not so, the plaintiff was entitled to claim...
Bachan Singh Vs. Dasrath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All985; 159Ind.Cas.631
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a revision brought by two defendants against whom a Small Cause Court has passed a decree. The first point raised in revision is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for restoration after it had rejected a plaint on the ground that insufficient Court-fee had been paid, and that the Court haying rejected the plaint was functus officio, and that the proper remedy of the plaintiff was to apply for review of judgment, and further that the suit was barred by limitation. The facts are that the plaintiff brought a. suit on a promissory note dated 20th July 1929, and the plaintiff relied for saving limitation on an acknowledgment of 29th August 1931. The plaint was dated 3rd February 1934 and was valued at Rs. 751-8-0 with Court-fee stamp of Rs. 30. There was a deficiency of Rs. 47-8-0 and the plaintiff was allowed upto 13th March 1934. to make up the deficiency. He did not do so and the date was extended several times to 29th March, 9t...
Nirmal Singh Vs. Zamir UddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All984; 159Ind.Cas.447
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that they had acquired a. proprietary title from the present appellant, Nirmal Singh, and they sued the defendants on the allegation that the said defendants were their tenants. These defendants maintained that they were not tenants, but proprietors. An issue was consequently remitted to the Civil Court, and that Court decided that the defendants were proprietors and not tenants. In the result, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs acquiesced in the decree, but Nirmal Singh, who had been impleaded as a party pro forma preferred an appeal against the decree. The learned Judge of the appellate Court held that Nirmal Singh was not entitled to appeal against the decree, because he no longer had any proprietary title in the land.2. The respondents are not represented in this Court, and I have had not tine advantage of hearing any argument on their behalf; but it...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »