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.
Emperor Vs. Ram Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All989; 159Ind.Cas.290
Harries, J.1. The 13 appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1046 of 1934, were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of the Etawah District of an offence under Section 399, Penal Code. The appellant, Ram Nath, was sentenced under that section to a term of six years rigorous imprisonment, the appellant, Khuda Bux was sentenced under that section read with Section 75, Penal Code, to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, whereas the remaining 11 appellants were sentenced under that section each to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants Ram Prasad and Gulzari were also charged with an offence under Section 307, Penal Code. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under that section to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment which was made to run concurrently with the sentence previously referred to which was imposed upon them under Section 399, Penal Code. The appellants, Ram Prasad, Gulzari and Sbiama were further charged with an offence under Section ...
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Pt. Sheva Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All14; 158Ind.Cas.637
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by a defendant against a decree of a learned single Judge of this Court. The plaintiff is the zamindar of the village and he sued for a decree that the defendant should remove the materials of a house within a specified time, and that the site of the house should be given to the plaintiff. The history of the house is as follows: Mt. Jasoda was a co-sharer in the village and she owned this house. There was an auction sale in 1885 by which her zamindari share was sold. She became an ex-proprietary tenant and was succeeded by Lala Earn, her adopted son, and in May 1929, Lala Ram sold this house to the appellant. The Court below has found that there is no custom by which a raiyat can transfer a house. It was further found that Mt. Jasoda occupied this house as a raiyat and her son Lala Ram also occupied it as a raiyat, and that the village in question Gopalpura was not an agricultural village, but it was a village which is one mile from the town of Agra, ...
In Re: B, an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1023; 159Ind.Cas.561
Bennet, J.1. This case against Mr. B, advocate of Ghazipur, was sent to the Bar Council for an enquiry and the Bar Council framed the following two charges : (1) That you, Mr. B, carried on a business in partnership with others, but took steps not to disclose your connection as a partner and thereby committed professional misconduct. (2) That in the suit, out of which F.A. 481 of 1929 arose, you denied that you were a partner, which denial was held not to be true both by the Subordinate Judge and the Hon'ble High Court, and your conduct in the said suit disclosed that you took steps to make out that you were a creditor, which was also found to be untrue, and by such action you were guilty of professional misconduct.2. The Bar Council conducted an enquiry and heard evidence on both sides and have come to a conclusion as follows:Our conclusions therefore are that Mr. B was never a partner but had advanced Rs. 2,000 as a loan to Harnandan Prasad, that his defence in suit No. 85 of 1928 wa...
(Captain) Raja Ram-gopal Singh Vs. Harish Chandra Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All17; 158Ind.Cas.752
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a decree-holder's application and is directed against an order passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Allahabad dismissing an application for execution on the ground that the same was time barred. The application for execution was admittedly filed more than three years after the date of the decree sought to be executed. It was however alleged to be within time on the ground that a previous application for execution of the same decree had been filed on 7th December 1931, i.e., within three years of the present application for execution. The learned Small Cause Court Judge however held that the former application was not an application in accordance with law and therefore refused to treat the same as a step-in-aid of execution.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the view of the Court below that the application for execution filed in the year 1931 was not in accordance with law, is erroneous, and in support of this contention he has placed re...
Dori and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1020; 158Ind.Cas.438
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by 17 persons who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly of an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. The trial was by jury. After the Judge had finished his charge the jury retired to consider their verdict. The foreman thereafter delivered, the verdict of the jury in the following terms:We do not find the offence proved because although we think that the accused were present there is no evidence that they intended to commit dacoity when they went there. The affair-seems to be rather what happens in a village and in such a case it is quite ordinary to use such an expression as 'even though you out our throats we will not let you cut the crop.' We think that they went to the field with the idea of settling the dispute. I know of such a case in one of my own villages.2. At this stage the learned Judge stopped the foreman and explained certain matters to the jury and also put certain questions to the foreman to which b...
Pyare Lal and ors. Vs. Dwarka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All65; 158Ind.Cas.759
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Agra recommending that an order of the City Magistrate dated 24th April 1935, be set aside. By that order the City Magistrate made absolute an order which had been issued to the applicants under Section 133, Criminal P.C. The ground on which the learned Judge recommends that the order of 24th April be set aside is that it was passed without an opportunity being given to the applicants of being heard. A petition was presented by the opposite party on 9th January 1934, against the three applicants and seven other persons complaining that they were squatting and selling vegetables at a public place in front of the shops occupied by the opposite party and that they thereby constituted an unlawful obstruction. On receipt of this petition the City Magistrate at first wrote to the Chairman of the Municipal Board in the hope that he might be able to arrange matters,; but when no action was taken, a second petition was...
Bir Ahir and ors. Vs. Bhagwant Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.915
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiffs for joint possession over the plots described in the plaint by demolition of the constructions made thereon by the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Out of the plots which were in dispute this appeal is confined to only one plot No. 185 which was the sir of the defendants. It has been found by both the Courts below that the defendants are co-sharers; that the constructions have been made by the defendants on this plot (plot No. 185) recently without the plaintiffs' consent, and that there is no bar of estoppel or acquiescence. It has also been found that this plot is defendants' sir.2. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants that inasmuch as the plot is their sir and they have a right of exclusive possession, their buildings should not be demolished. The defendants rely ...
Shib Charan Das Vs. Muqaddam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All62; 158Ind.Cas.643
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 8th March 1919, and the sole question for consideration in the appeal is whether -or not the Courts below were right in holding that defendants 8 to 10 had acquired the rights of a prior mortgagee of the year 1919 and were entitled to hold up that mortgage as a shield against the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. The. facts are as follows:2. One Muqaddam mortgaged his property; in the year 1913 by means of a deed of simple mortgage to one Murlidhar. He. again mortgaged the same property in the year 1919 to the plaintiff appellant. Muqaddam's brother Pir Baksh also joined in the execution of the mortgage of 1919, but I am not concerned in the present appeal with the share mortgaged by Pir Baksh. Murlidhar put his mortgage into suit and obtained a preliminary decree in the year 1925 and a final decree in the year 1926. The final decree was for a sum of Rs. 539-4-6 with futures interest at six per cent. per an...
Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Sri Thakur Ram Krishna Murari Ji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1018; 158Ind.Cas.434
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff to recover possession over plots Nos. 141 and 142 described in the plaint by declaring that the lease dated 4th November 1925, executed by Jugal Kishore, general attorney of Hari Chand in favour of the defendant is invalid, ineffectual and null and void against the plaintiff. The plots in dispute belonged to Hari Chand and Madan Mohan who were brothers. Both the brothers had mortgaged their proprietary rights. In 1924 the share of Hari Chand was sold in the mortgage decree and was purchased by Ram Gopal. Madan Mohan died sometime in 1924 or 1925 without an issue and his share was succeeded to by Hari Chand. So Hari Chand again became the owner of half of the mahal. This share was also sold in 1927 and purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff after the purchase of this half-share purchased from Ram Gopal Hari Chand's share also which had been purchased by Ram Gopal in 1924. The p...
Rogi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All981; 159Ind.Cas.22
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This application must be allowed and the applicant must be acquitted. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case summarily, allowed his judgment to be influenced by the opinion of the investigating officer. The learned Magistrate ought to have realized that the opinion of the investigating officer was not legal evidence and could not be made the basis of a finding that the report made by the applicant was false.2. The applicant is a Bania and has a shop in village Amwakhas where he resides. The shop is in a house some walls of which are made o f fencing (tartar) with mud on either side of the same. He made a report in the police station on 15th October 1934. The report was of burglary and six persons were named in the report as being the persons whom the applicant suspected of having committed the theft. In the report it was stated that the burglary was committed by means of a hole in the ground below the wall. Out of the six persons named in the report two were Dhuni...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »