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.
Bhujharat and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All925; 159Ind.Cas.154
Collister, J.1. The 19 applicants have been convicted under Section 147 and 5 of them have been ordered under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, to pay compensation of Rs. 5 each to the complainant. The appellants appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge and the result was that some o f the sentences under Section 147, Penal Code, were reduced and the amount of compensation to be paid by applicants Nos. 1 to 5 was reduced from Rs. 20 each to Rs. 5 each. The only point which arises for determination in this revision is whether compensation under Section 22, Cattle Trepass Act, can legally be awarded when it is not claimed. This is the point which has been argued before me. In Baijnath Sahai v. Emperor 1923 Pat. 292, a learned Judge of the Patna High Court, held that, Court is not justified in awarding compensation under, Section 22, where such compensation has not been claimed in the petition of complaint. In Ramdularey v. Manohar 1930 Nag. 149, a learned Judge of the Judicial Comm...
Kr. Girwar Singh Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All945; 159Ind.Cas.446
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and other defendants by the plaintiffs-respondents for rendition of accounts of the income derived from the market in Mauza Pachawar and for their share out of the income of the market held in the plots in Thok Dhyan. The plaintiff's case was that the parties are lambardars of Mauza Pachawar. Mauza Pachawar is divided into three Thoks : Thok Billo, Thok Dhyan and. a Shamlat Thok. A market is held on some plots in these thoks. The lambardars of the village used to make collections and divide the income among the co-sharers. About 8 or 9 years ago a dispute arose between the lambardars. The Collector of Muttra took over the management of the market. He began to make collections and deposit the income in the Savings Bank. Subsequently a compromise was arrived at between the lambardars and it was decided that in future the lambardars will arrange for management and they appointed defendants 1 to 3 to...
O.M. Chiene Vs. Kishun Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All982; 159Ind.Cas.616
Harries, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad, setting aside an order of the Insolvency Court declaring a certain sale-deed, dated 1st November 1929, standing in the name of the respondent, Kishen Prasad null and void.2. The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows : One Badri Prasad applied on 18th November 1929, to be adjudged an insolvent, and was so adjudged on 16th May 1930. Many years before this insolvency Badri Prasad had transferred certain of his property to his relations. On 22nd September 1924 he had mortgaged part of his property in favour of Sundar Lal, and on 11th May 1925, he had ostensibly sold some of his property to Kunj Behari Lal. It is to be observed that after this insolvency the Official Receiver moved to set aside both these transfers as being fraudulent, and the Insolvency Court has set them aside, and that decision has been confirmed by the learned District Judge.3. These two transactions show that lo...
Dal Chand and ors. Vs. Nathu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All265
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs who have now become the zamindars of the village under an auction purchase, for dispossession of the defendants and for recovery of possession and damages. The plaintiffs held a money decree against the previous zamindar and got the village attached on 19th February 1926. The attachment was presumably effected under Order 21, Rule 54, by which the judgment-debtor was prohibited from transferring or charging the property in any way. Certain lands were in the possession of tenants against whom ejectment proceedings in the revenue Court were taken by the then zamindar, resulting in their ejectment in May 1926. These tenants were paying Rs. 93 rent for the tenancy. On 27th July 1926 the zamindar whose village had been attached let in the defendants as tenants of those lands, on a rent of Rs. 20. He put them in as tenants under a written lease for one year, for which he had taken a nazarana of Rs. ...
Gajraj Sinha and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All938; 159Ind.Cas.306
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur, recommending that the convictions and sentences of Gajraj Singh, Ram Singh, Mulaim Singh, Kjandehi, Pitam, Jhamman and Arjun, under Section 447, Penal Code, be set aside. A complaint was filed against the persons named above by Jwala, a peon of the Court of Wards, under Section 447 and Section 352, Penal Code, on 5th September 1934. The complaint was that the persons named above had been ejected on 30th June 1934, but they again came to the fields and cultivated them forcibly on 25th July 1934. He also complained that he had been assaulted by these persons. The trial Magistrate found that the persons named above, that is, Gajraj Singh and others had been duly ejected and they committed criminal trespass, and convicted them under Section 447. The learned Magistrate sentenced Gajraj Singh and Ram Singh to pay a fine of Rs. 40 each and the others to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each and ordered two months rigorous...
Mt. Basanti Devi Vs. Mt. Sahodra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All979; 159Ind.Cas.644
Bajpai, J.1. This is an application by Mt. Basanti, a defendant in civil suit No. 16 of 1935, pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, and the prayer in the application is that the said suit be transferred to the Hon'ble Chief Court at Lucknow. The application is headed under Section 22, Civil P.C., and it is obvious that the intention of the applicant is that we should come to a determination under the provisions of that section.2. The facts on which the application is based are that the suit relates to certain property which was owned by one Lala Murlidhar and to a certain will which was executed by the aforesaid person. It is said that Murlidhar executed a will in 1931 and died in 1934 and that he possessed considerable moveable and immovable property, the bulk of which lies in the Districts of Lucknow and Partabgarh. The suit brought by the opposite parties was for a declaration that the alleged will was a forged will and thatthe estate of Lala Mmrlidhar in the hands ...
Ganga Saran Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Sirtaji Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All924
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs reversioners arising out of suit brought for possession of the property in the hands of Mt. Sirtaji, who had been a widow of their collateral. The plaintiffs case was that Mt. Sirtaji had remarried and had forfeited the estate of her husband which has now vested in them. Mt. Sirtaji denied that she had remarried, but it is now found definitely by the lower appellate Court that she had not been unchaste during the lifetime of her husband and has in fact remarried according to the Aryasamajic faith after the death of her husband. The learned Judge however took the view that the Sanataridharama is absolutely different from the Aryasamaj religion and that the latter is in fact a new religion, and applied the analogy of the case of a Hindu widow becoming a Muslim or a Christian and then remarrying and not forfeiting her estate. In appeal it is contended before us that Aryasamaj is not a new religion, but is a sect of Hinduism. It is not n...
Emperor Vs. S.M. Wahid Ullah Ahrari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1013; 158Ind.Cas.428
1. On the complaint of one Mohammad Istehsan proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, were started in this Court against S.M. Wahidullah Ahrari in connection with certain articles published by the latter in a paper at Aligarh while a complaint under Section 500, Penal Code, was pending in the Subordinate Criminal Court at Aligarh. By an order dated 26th October 1934, passed by a Bench of this Court, Walndullah was punished with simple imprisonment for a term of four months. He was also directed to pay the costs of Mohammad Istehsan and the Crown, tnd the costs of Mohammad Istehsan were fixed at Rs. 100 and of the Crown at Rs. 100. In the result Wahidullah was directed to deposit Rs. 200 as costs in this Court within two months.2. The costs were not so deposited within the time allowed by this Court and on 30th April 1935, notice was issued to Wahidullah to show cause why the costs should not be realised as a fine under the provisions of Section 547, Criminal P.C. In reply to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›