Allahabad Court January 1936 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.
(Firm) Mangal Sen-jai Deo Prasad and ors. Vs. Ganeshi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All396
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are three defendants' second appeals arising out of three separate suits to recover certain-sums of money. The points in issue between the parties in all the three suits are exactly alike and we therefore propose to dispose them of by one judgment. A firm styled 'Mohan Lal Babu Lal' of Aligarh, drew three hundis upon themselves. The form of these hundis was as follows:ToBhai Mohan Lal of the good and prosperous place of Aligarh, from Mohan Lal Babu Lal of Aligarh whose compliments please accept.We draw, one hundi on ourselves for Rupees 1,000 in words (one thousand) double of Rs. 500 payable after 60 days from the date...here deposited with Bhai Mangal San Jaideo-Prasad.Please pay to a 'Shah' after making usual enquiries in accordance with the usage of the market.2. The three hundis in suit were endorsed by the firm of Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad, the defendants, as follows:This hundi is sold to Hoti Lal Babu Lal by Mangal Sen Jaideo Prasad.3. The plaintiffs in ...
Narsingh Prasad Singh Vs. Puranmashi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All459
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff sued in the Court of an Assistant Col. lector, First Class, for a declaration under Section 123, Agra Tenancy Act, that the defendants were liable to pay the sum of Rs. 273-9-1 annually for their holding as fixed-rate tenants. The plaintiff is the zamindar of the village. The plaintiff had brought a suit for arrears of rent at this rate and only Rs. 270-13-0 have been decreed on the ground that Rs. 2-12.2 was cess payable under the Benaras Family Domains Act, Act 3 of 1904. The word used in that Act is 'rate' and the Act provides that the Maharaja of Benares should receive a certain rate from land and that rate should be paid by the tenants to inferior proprietors who could recover it as arrears of rent from the tenants and that the inferior proprietors should pay to the Maharaja under Section 6, Part 2, Act 3 of 1904. The Court below has come to the conclusion ...
Babu Narsingh Prasad Singh Vs. Puranmashi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.762
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff sued in the Court of an Assistant Collector, First Class, for a declaration under Section 123 of the Agra Tenancy Act that the defendants were liable to pay the sum of Rs. 273-9-1 annually for their holding as fixed-rate tenants. The plaintiff is the zamindar of the village. The plaintiff had brought a suit for arrears of rent at this rate and only Rs. 270-13-0 have been decreed on the ground that Rs. 2-12-2 was cess payable under the Benares Family Domains Act. Act III of 1904. The word used in that Act is 'rate' and the Act provides that the Maharaja of Benares should receive a certain rate from land and that rate should be paid by the tenants to inferior proprietors who could recover it as arrears of rent from the tenants and that the inferior proprietors should pay to the Maharaja under Section 6, Part II of Act III of 1904. The Court below has come to the c...
M.L.C. Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All314; 162Ind.Cas.507
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application by the author of a book called 'Jat Jati ke Mukammal Halat yani Jat Darpan, Part I,' under Section 99-B, Criminal Procedure Code, for an order to set aside the order passed by the Local Government under Section 99-A forfeiting to His Majesty all copies of his book. The first question which arose for consideration was whether the learned Counsel for the applicant should open the case, or whether the Government Advocate should begin. That of course depends on the further question whether the onus of proof lies on the applicant or on the Government. No doubt the Full Bench in Emperor v. Baijnath Kedia : AIR1925All195 , were inclined to think that having regard to the framework of Section 99, the onus is cast upon the Local Government; but added that the question of construction was not from difficulty, and that the matter was not of any great practical importance. The, importance of the question lies in the right to begin and then the final right of...
Kallan Beg and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All306
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions-Judge, Bareilly, in appeal from an order of a Magistrate of that district convicting the applicants under Sections 147, 332/148 and 225-B/l49, I.P.C. The Magistrate sentenced each of the accused to nine months' R. I. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentences of some to three months' R. I., and of others to six months' R. I. The gist of the offence with which the applicants were charged is that on 23rd February 1935 they attacked two constables and a few chaukidars, who had gone to village Parewa to search Mt. Mohania and to bring her to the Court of the Magistrate who had issued a warrant under Section 100, Criminal P.C., attempted to prevent the constables from taking Mt. Mohania. One of the applicants, namely Kalian Beg, has since died, and his case requires no further consideration. The remaining 11 accused are Kurmi and Chamar residents of village Parewa. The facts found by both...
Nawab Singh Vs. Daljit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All401
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession brought by Nawab Singh against the defendant Daljit Singh on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 21st April 1921, executed by Daljit Singh in favour of one Gajraj Singh, who was the uncle of the present plaintiff Nawab Singh. The defendant pleaded that the document did not represent a genuine transaction but was a fictitious one and no title under it had passed to Gajraj Singh. He supported this plea by alleging that previously one Mt. Phul Kunwar had sold this property to Daljit Singh, who was not a co-sharer in the village, and that there was an apprehension of a suit for pre emption and in order to defeat the claim for pre-emption Daljit Singh fictitiously executed the sale-deed in favour of Gajraj Singh, who was a co-sharer. It has been found that a pre-emptor, Narain Singh actually instituted a suit for pre-emption on 21st June 1920, against the vendee Gajraj Singh, presumably impleading Daljit ...
Jiwan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All470; 163Ind.Cas.661
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal by Jiwan, son of Pitam Kachhi, who has been sentenced to death for the murder of Reoti Kachhi. The two men were living in a village or group of huts which had newly been established near some land which was being brought under cultivation. It is in evidence that they had been on good terms and had been in joint cultivation of some land but had quarrelled and separated. There was a dispute between them about some fields and there was an indication in a statement made to the police which was put to witnesses in cross-examination that there had been improper relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased. The body of Reoti was found in a field on 6th July 1935. The medical evidence shows that his throat had been cut. He had suffered three injuries. One was an incised wound 5 inches long 1 inch wide and 2 1/2 inches deep on the right side and front of the neck cutting all the blood vessels and the nerves of the neck and also the trachea and the ...
Abdul Jalil Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All354
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application by one Abdul Jalil Khan for revision of the order, dated 6th September 1935, passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, making a complaint of an offence under Section 172, Criminal P.C., against the applicant. The circumstances giving rise to the application are as follows:2. On 16th August 1935, Mt. Ganga Dei, a Hindu female, went to the police station at Fatehpur to make a report. A number of Hindus and Mahomedans were interested in the proceeding which Mt. Ganga Dei was expected to take. Hanuman Teli, whose relationship with the woman does not appear from the record, reported that the woman had been abducted by certain persons. The woman expressed her willingness to go with Abdul Jalil Khan and declared that she had embraced Islam. The police allowed the woman to go with Abdul Jalil Khan, who was, however, called upon to give an undertaking to produce her before the Magistrate next day (17th August 1935). The woman was not, however, pr...
Jaipal Ahir and anr. Vs. Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All485
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title, and in the alternative for possession. The plaintiffs first filed an application in the Revenue Court in 1929 for a perfect partition of the mahal in which the property in dispute was situated. Some objection was raised on behalf of the defendants as to the plaintiffs' title. On 30th March 1931, the plaintiffs applied to the Revenue Court for permission presumably under Section 111, Land Revenue Act to institute a suit in the Civil Court for the adjudication of their title and prayed that the proceedings in the Revenue Court be stayed until the matter was determined by the Civil Court. On 1st April 1931, the present suit was instituted. The application of the plaintiffs remained pending in the Revenue Court for a long time and ultimately on 2nd March 1932, the Court ordered that the plaintiffs should be allowed to file a suit in the Civil Court within three months of the order. Obviously, the order purporte...
Latafat HusaIn and ors. Vs. Hidayat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All573
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a 1/8th share in the inheritance of the plaintiff's deceased husband Fasahat Husain. Originally Fasahat Husain and his brother, Tahawar Husain, were entitled to equal shares in some property; and Tahawar Husain died, his estate devolving on his mother Mt. Sanjha Bibi, under the Shia Law. Mt. Sanjha Bibi gifted this property to Fasahat Husain's son from his first wife in 1894. On 6th November 1920 two documents were executed: one was a deed of wakf by Fasahat Husain under which he appointed his second wife, the present plaintiff, Shafiq-un-nisa, as the mutawalli, and constituted the children of Shafiq-un-nisa as the beneficiaries; and the second was a deed of release executed by Shafiq-un-nisa under which she relinquished her claim to her dower against the property of her husband, and also relinquished her claim to any inheritance in the estate reserved by him. Fasahat Husain died in 1928. Thereupon, con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »