Allahabad Court January 1936 Judgments
Jaimangal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All437; 163Ind.Cas.848
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application by Jaimangal and three others for revision of an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, upholding their conviction and sentences under Section 325, I.P.C. The facts, concurrently found by the lower Courts, may be briefly stated. In village Gulahala, there are two factions, one headed by Ram Prasad and his brothers, and the other by Jaimangal. The parties are descendants of the same common ancestor, and are related to each other. They have been at loggerheads for a considerable length of time. On 11th November 1935, at about 11 a.m., there was an altercation, followed by a fight, in village Gulahala. Some men on both sides received injuries. Ram Prasad was not present at Gulahala, and one Ram Lakhan went to inform him of what had happened. Ram Prasad and Ram Lakhan proceeded to the Padrauna police station on bicycles. Two first information reports were made at the thana, one by Janu, who belonged to the party of Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Zainab Bibi Vs. Umar Hayat Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All732
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff's husband, Ammdad Khan, was the owner of a half share in three villages and the owner of two houses which were situated in one of the three villages. The plaintiff on his death claimed to be entitled to a l/8th share in the zamindari properties and l/4th share in the two houses. On 15th June 1930, the three sisters of the plaintiff's husband executed a sale-deed of their shares in the zamindari properties and in the two houses in favour of the defendants, who were admittedly strangers. Before the institution of the suit the plaintiff executed a deed of gift in respect of the house properties, but she alleged that that gift was invalid and ineffective as it had not been given effect to. She brought a suit for pre-emption of the entire property sold under the sale-deed and offered to pay the entire consideration which might really have been paid by the vendee, but put forward the case that the amount of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Vs. Mt. Rani Subhaddra Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All381
1. These are two Letters Patent appeals brought by a plaintiff in the following circumstances: The plaintiff brought two suits for arrears of rent for three years in the Court of the Assistant Collector 2nd Class as follows: In appeal No. 40 there was a plot of 1 bigha 8 biswas, and the rent claimed was As. 15-6 per annum. In appeal No. 44 there was a plot of 3 bighas, and the rent claimed was Rs. 2-3-6 per annum. The plaintiff claimed that he was the zamindar in the village called Cawnpore kohna, or Old Cawnpore, a village which was formerly outside the Municipal limits, but which had been included in the Municipal limits sometime ago. The plaintiff claimed a share in the mahal Jagannath of this village. The main defence in para. 3 of the written statement was:The plot claimed forms part of abadi land whereon a house is constructed in respect of which house tax is paid. The defendant and her predecessors have been in proprietary possession thereof for a long time. No rent was ever pai...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Ram Vs. L. Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All369; 163Ind.Cas.231
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a judgment-debtor, in which the sole question raised is one of limitation. The decree-holder obtained a decree on 11th December 1926 in the Small Cause Court, Bombay. On 11th July 1928 the decree-holder made an application for transfer of that decree for execution in the Court of the Munsif of Meerut. He received a certificate and copy of the decree in accordance with the rule corresponding to the rule of this Court in Order 21, Rule 6(2). Subsequently he did not take the copy of the decree and certificate to the Meerut Court; but he returned them to the Bombay Court. He then, on 2nd December 1929, made a further application for transfer to the Bombay Court asking that the decree should be transferred in the same way for execution to the Court of the Munsif of Meerut; and again the certificate and copy of decree were handed to him. He did not take them to Meerut, but again returned them to the Bombay Court. On 6th February 1931 he made...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ruqia Begam and ors. Vs. L. Suraj Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All404; 163Ind.Cas.344
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the property in dispute is not attachable and saleable in execution of a money decree as it is wakf property. The Courts below have held that the wakf in question is invalid and unenforceable.2. On 8th January 1919, Haji Nabi Baksh executed a deed of waqf-alal-aulad. After reciting that he was very old, and there was no certainty of this transitory life, the mentioned that he had four children, one son and three daughters, and had some house-properties, and declared ''therefore by way of foresight and for the sake of the maintenance of the son and daughters aforesaid, I have in accordance with law, Act 6 of 1913, made a wakf-alal-aulad in favour of his son and the three daughters in accordance with the legal shares under the Mahomedan law,' of the two houses. He provided that during his lifetime he would remain the mutawalli of the wakf property, and out of the income of the wakf property he woul...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Pansari Vs. Usman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All318
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by one Moti Pansari praying that an order of acquittal passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, dated 2nd January 1935, be set aside and the opposite parties convicted and sentenced according to law. The application is not stamped, neither is the copy of the judgment filed with it. The office has reported that the application and copy of the judgment should be stamped; but Sir Charles Ross Alston on behalf of the applicant contends otherwise and relies on Section 19, Sub-section 17, Court-fees Act (Act 7 of 1870). Section 19 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall render certain documents chargeable with any fee and among the documents so exempted are documents mentioned in Sub-section 17, viz. petitions by prisoners or other persons in duress or under restraint of any Court or its officers.2. The applicant Moti Pansari was convicted by this Court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offe...
Tag this Judgment!Pancham Vs. Rameshwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All376
Sulaiman, C.J.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that no appeal lies. The suit was for profits brought in the revenue Court in which a question of title was raised and an issue was sent to the civil Court for decision and the Assistant Collector accepted the finding of the learned Munsif. He ultimately decided the case and then the matter went up in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge has set aside the finding of the learned Munsif on the question of title and has remanded the whole case to the revenue Court for the determination of the amount of profits due to the plaintiff. The question is whether an appeal lies from this order.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant contends before us that the District Judge is not a revenue Court at all and that appeals from the decisions of District Judges are not governed by the Agra Tenancy Act but are governed by the Civil Procedure Code. His contention is that wherever the word 'Court' is used ...
Tag this Judgment!Mauji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All388
1. Mauji and Sewa, sons of Bhaju, and Bhura alias Mata Din, son of Madari, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Etawah of murdering Radha Kishun on the morning of 25th May 1935 and sentenced to death. They have appealed from their convictions and the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference for confirmation of the death sentences. Radha Kishun was a resident of village Andawa. The appellants are also residents of the same village. Radha Kishun's son was suffering from small pox and he used in those days to visit a temple named Than of Mahuar Devi which is situated at a distance of one mile from the village habitation. It is abundantly proved that he was murdered at about 9 a. m. near a well which is at a distance of a few yards from the temple. Apparently he took a bath at the well and proceeded to the temple to make an offering of water to the deity. When he returned from the temple to the well and was preparing to go back to his house he was murdered. These particu...
Tag this Judgment!Bechan Misir Vs. Markande Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All335
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by Bechan Misir, defendant, against the order of the learned District Judge, Benares, transferring the suit filed against him by the opposite parties from the Court of the Munsif of Shahgunj, to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Jaunpur. The valuation of the suit was Rs. 2,500. At the time the suit was filed, the Munsif of Shahganj had jurisdiction to try suits up to the valuation of Rs. 5,000. He was subsequently transferred and was succeeded by a Munsif whose jurisdiction was only up to Rs. 2,000. Then an application was made by the plaintiff to the learned District Judge, Benares, for the transfer of his suit from the Court of the Munsif of Shahganj. A notice was issued to the opposite parties and the learned District Judge transferred the suit from the Court of the Munsif of Shahganj to that of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Jaunpur. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the learned District Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Gajraj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All320; 165Ind.Cas.716
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by a Magistrate, First Class of Etah, in proceedings purporting to be those under Section 145, Criminal P.C. It appears that there was a dispute between the applicant, Chaudhri Gajraj Singh, on one side and the opposite party, Rai Bahadur Inder Narain, on the other as regards the right of the former to have a ferry plying between the eastern and the western banks of Kali Nadi at a place which lies within the ambit of villages Rajpur, Dhumri and Gangupur. The case was started by a letter, dated 14th October 1934, addressed by R.B. Inder Narain to the District Magistrate, Etah, complaining that Ch. Gajraj Singh had started a rival ferry on 11th September 1934 not far from the place where his own ferry, which was of old standing, was being worked and that there was an apprehension of a breach of peace in consequence of the action of Ch. Gajraj Singh. Both parties filed written statements in due course. R.B. Ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »