Skip to content

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.

Jan 13 1936

Ganeshji Pandey and ors. Vs. Mt. Bhagirati and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-13-1936

Reported in: AIR1936All368; 163Ind.Cas.242

Collister, J.1. This is an appeal from an order which has been passed by the District Judge of Benares in respect of an application for guardianship. One Pandit Devi Prasad died on 25th June 1931, leaving a minor son by name Sita Ram. On 19th May 1931 Pandit Devi Prasad had executed a will, and it is said that under that will he appointed the four persons hereinafter named as the guardians of Sita Ram: Ganeshji Pande, Devi Pande, Bish Nath, Suraj Prasad Pathak. Suraj Prasad Pathak is dead; but the other three abovenamed persons applied to the District Judge for their appointment as guardians of Sita Ram on the basis of Pandit Devi Prasad's will dated 19th May 1931. The application was opposed by Mt. Bhagirathi, who was the sister of Sita Ram; and her husband Trilochan put in an application before the Court for his own appointment as guardian. Mt. Bhagirathi is now dead and learned Counsel for Trilochan informs us that his client has no longer any interest in this matter. The District J...


Jan 13 1936

Perana or Peerana and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-13-1936

Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.662

Allsop, J.1. The appellants Perana, Mewa, Happu and Toiyan have been sentenced to death tinder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering one Bhikam Singh. They have appealed and we also have before us the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge on the subject of the confirmation of the sentence. There can be no doubt that Bhikam Singh was attacked and killed on the morning of July 10, 1935. The story for the prosecution is that he had been into the fields to relieve himself and was returning when be was attacked by the appellants who had a grudge against him because he being the headman of the village had accused them of committing thefts and had threatened them.2. The story for the defence is that Perana alone caused the injuries which resulted in the death of Bhikam Singh and that he caused those injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. The story is that Bhikam Singh had dumped some rubbish in Perana's field and that he got angry when Perana remonstrated wi...


Jan 10 1936

Sunder Vs. Emperor

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-10-1936

Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.659

ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh in a case under the U.P. Excise Act. One Sunder was originally prosecuted for being in possession of illicit liquor. The report of the Chemical Examiner, on which depended the issue whether the liquor possessed by hint was illicit, was inconclusive, and the case had to be dropped in respect of that offence. The Sub-Inspector, however moved the Magistrate, before whom the case was pending, that the accused be convicted of the offence of being in possession of liquor in excess of the quantity authorised by law (which includes provisions of the Act, the rules and the terms of the license). The Magistrate proceeded to try the accused for the offence of being in possession of liquor in excess of the authorised quantity and eventually convicted him, awarding a sentence of fine of Rs. 5.2. An application for revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, who has made the present reference. The learned ...


Jan 08 1936

Bechan Prasad Vs. Jhuri and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-08-1936

Reported in: AIR1936All363

ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application by one Bechan Prasad for revision of an order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Benares, awarding compensation to the opposite party under Section 250, Criminal P.C. It appears that Mt. Biranjia was married to one Jhuri by her parents, Lakhan and Mt Nanki. Badri Nath officiated as the priest at the marriage. On 21st January 1935 Bechan Prasad, who is the secretary of an association which has social reforms among the 'mallahs' as one of its objects, filed a complaint under the Sarda Act, alleging that Mt. Biranjia was below 14 on the day of her marriage and praying that her parents, her husband and the priest be prosecuted under the Sarda Act. The District Magistrate in whose Court the complaint was filed, called for a report from a Magistrate, and the latter reported that the complaint was well-founded. Accordingly summonses were issued to the accused, but no service could be effected for some time. In the meantime, the District Ma...


Jan 06 1936

Gangaram Vs. Harihar Prasad and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-06-1936

Reported in: AIR1936All336

Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage. One of the defendants, viz. defendant 7, was impleaded as a subsequent mortgagee. His defence was that he had been subrogated to the position of a prior mortgagee because he had redeemed a previous mortgage. The mortgage in suit was executed on 23rd June 1924. The mortgage in favour of defendant 7 was executed on 24th January 1924. There was a provision in that mortgage that a certain sum of money was left with him to redeem a prior mortgage dated 17th August 1915 in favour of one Bhagwat Das. Defendant 7 did redeem this mortgage and the Courts below have held that he was subrogated to the position of Bhagwat Das and have decided the case accordingly. The argument in second appeal is that defendant 7 could not be subrogated to the position of Bhagwat Das because under the provisions of para. 3 of Section 92 T.P. Act, there was no registered instrument by which the mortgagee agreed to such subrogation. It s...


Jan 03 1936

Gauri Shankar and ors. Vs. (Maharani) Hemant Kumari Debi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jan-03-1936

Reported in: AIR1936All301

Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent. The ghat known as Prayag Ghat in Mohalla Dasaswamedh, Benares City, was built by the ancestors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff recently repaired the same. The plaintiff's case was that the said ghat was her property, that she and her predecessors-in-title had been in peaceful possession as proprietors and that she had been exercising all the proprietary rights over the same.2. The defendants who are known as 'ghatias' had been sitting in different seasons on different portions of the said, ghat with her leave and license for earning their livelihood with alms and gifts from the Hindu pilgrims who came to bathe at the said ghat. The defendants have cut holes on the stairs and pavements and fixed bamboos on them and constructed fire-hearths on the ghat and have thereby been damaging and injuring the plaintiffs' ghat. They have proved themselves to be a nuisance and h...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial