Allahabad Court February 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.
Genda Mal Vs. Lala Sukhdarshan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.200
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. An ex parte money decree was obtained, and an execution of its certain properties alleged to belong to the judgment-debtor, Chaman, were attached by an order of the execution Court. An Amin went to the spot and made the attachment and handed over the custody of these properties which consisted of cattle and grain to the appellant, Genda Mal, who agreed to take charge of the attached properties supurdar and executed a supurdnama under which he undertook to restore the properties whenever called upon by the Court or the Court Amin. This happened on February 4, 1932. Later an application was filed by the judgment-debtor to have the ex parte decree set aside, and on April 20, 1932, the ex parte decree was set aside, the case was restored to its original number on the file. But on the same date the decree-holder applied for attachment before judgment, and the Court passed an order that the properties sh...
In Re: Ranjit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All359
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Thakur Ranjit Singh has tiled a complaint against Mr. Carleton Advocate, praying that an inquiry may be ordered into his complaint regarding the advocate's failure to render accounts and refund the balance due. According to the petitioner, his son was convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and Mr. Carleton conducted the case in the original Court as well as in the High Court, and later advised him to appeal to the Privy Council, that the petitioner in three instalments deposited Rs. 1,600 as approximate expenses, and that he was assured all along that proceedings of the appeal were going on. His son died in July 1934, upon which the petitioner informed the counsel to discontinue further expenditure. The petitioner sent many letters to the advocate asking for accounts, but did not receive any satisfactory reply and ultimately Rs. 355-14-0 were returned to him.2. The position taken up by Mr. Carleton in his written reply is that the petitioner had been told that the fe...
Kunj Behari Das and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All322
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This application in revision arises out of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The present applicants claim to be the managing committee or trustees of a certain temple. They say that the original mahanth died some time at the end of the year 1933 and that they appointed Radha Raman Das as his successor on 4th December 1933 Radha Raman Das continued to be mahanth till 28th July 1935, when he executed a document relinquishing that position. On 29th July 1935, Radha Raman Das sent a telegram to the District Magistrate and made a report to the police that he had been forcibly dispossessed. On 3rd August 1935, he made the application under Section 145, Criminal P.C., which has given rise to these proceedings. He said that he had been compelled by force to execute the deed of relinquishment. A police enquiry was then held and a report was made that there was a danger of a breach of the peace. The Magistrate called upon the parties on 31st August to put in their wr...
(Sardar) Mohammad Shakir Dad Khan and ors. Vs. Sahu Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All467; 163Ind.Cas.841
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by a decree-holder under the following circumstances: The decree-holder has made an application for execution of a decree in Suit No. 127 of 1923 in which a decree was passed in his favour in F.A. No. 204 of 1925 by this Court on 8th May 1929. The present application was made on 8th December 1932 and the decree-holder relies for saving limitation under Article 182(5), Limitation Act, on a previous application made by him on 29th March 1932. The question before us is whether that previous application is one which comes within the terms of Article 182(5) which provides as follows:The date of the final order passed on an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution, or to take some step in aid of execution of the decree or order.2. The application made on 29th March 1932 was for four items: (1) Rs. 179, costs of the appeal; (2) Rs. 178-8-0, costs of application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council; (3) Rs. 268-1...
Mohammad Tahir and ors. Vs. Bechey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All466; 163Ind.Cas.545
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who are heirs of one Mohammad Yahya. The facts giving rise to the suit and the appeal may be briefly stated. It appears that one Mt. Sakina was the owner of 1 1/4 th biswa share in zamindari property and on 15th March 1916 she sold a 7 biswansi out of that share to one Sarfarazan. On the death of Mt. Sarfarazan, Mohammad Yahya became entitled to this 7 biswansi. In spite of the sale to Mt. Sarfarazan, Mt. Sakina remained in possession and in the year 1923 Mohammad Yahya, heir of Mt. Sarfarazan, had to bring a suit (No. 259 of 1923) for a declaration and injunction against Mt. Sakina in respect of this 7 biswansi share. The suit was decreed on 31st January 1924 and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal on 28th April 1925. In 1919 Mt. Sakina, in spite of the sale of 1916, mortgaged the entire 1 1/4 th biswa zamindari property to Raghubhar Dayal including the 7 biswansi share already sold to Mt. Sarfarazan. In 1923 she execu...
Habib and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All386
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The three applicants were sentenced to whipping of 12 stripes each under Section 457, I.P.C. There was evidence that a burglary was committed in the house of the complainant who discovered the fact next morning and made a report to the police in which he mentioned that he suspected the applicants because he had seen them together sitting in front of the house of one of them. It is very likely that suspicions were aroused because these people were not of good character, but that is a matter which it is not necessary to discuss. The result was that the houses occupied by the applicants were searched. In both the houses stolen property was found.2. The argument in respect of one of these men is that the property is not established to be stolen property. The Magistrate tried the case summarily. He had the evidence before him. He believed that the property was stolen property especially as the applicant concerned produced no evidence to establish that the property was his....
Raj NaraIn and anr. Vs. B. Bindaban
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All449; 163Ind.Cas.828
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Farrukhabad amending a mortgage decree under Section 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned advocate for the decree-holders contends before us that the Court below has seized jurisdiction by misinterpreting the definition of 'agriculturist' within the meaning of Section 2. No doubt the learned Munsif has thought that inasmuch as the debtor's income during the current year, namely April 1935 to March 1936, was about Rs. 500 and odd he was not assessable to income-tax, and that the words 'is assessed' in the proviso to Section 2 means 'at the present time,' that is to say at the time when the Court is to pass its order. On the date when the learned Munsif disposed of the case the rules framed by the Local Government had not been published and that is why the position was not so clear to him. His interpretation of the section does appear to be wrong as it is difficult to hold that the debtor canno...
Mubarik Hasan Vs. Ishri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All451; 163Ind.Cas.971
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order passed in execution proceedings by the learned District Judge of Budaun. The appellant was a tenant and a decree was passed against him for arrears of rent in favour of the lambardar. Thereafter there was a partition in the mohal and the decree-holder ceased to be the landlord of the holding. He applied however under Section 79 for execution of his decree for arrears of rent by ejectment of the judgment-debtor, i.e., the appellant. He obtained an order from the Assistant Collector. The appellant appealed to the District Judge and his appeal was rejected. He has come in second appeal to this Court. The other party is not represented, but it seems to me that no appeal lies. Section 246, Agra Tenancy Act, says that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the appellate decree of a District Judge on the grounds specified in Section 100, Civil P.C., If the order passed by the District Judge can be described as a decree no doubt a second a...
Tulsi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All650
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The applicant Tulshi Ram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 243, I.P.C., for being in possession of counterfeit coin which are counterfeits of the King's coin with intent that fraud might be committed and having known at the time when he became possessed of the coin that they were counterfeit.2. It appears from the evidence that a Sub-Inspector of Police obtained information that the applicant and his brother Salig Ram, who lived with him, were engaged in manufacturing and passing counterfeit coin in connexion with a relation of theirs. He consequently searched the house in the presence of a large number of people, including 5 witnesses four of whom signed the search list. One of these witnesses, as the learned Judge has remarked, was a gentleman of position. This gentleman has not been produced as a witness in the case, but the learned Judge has remarked quite reasonably that it was not probable...
Ram Sarup Vs. Sahu Bhagwati Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All636
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by a decree-holder Ram Sarup. The facts are somewhat complicated and are as follows: Jagannath and his son Ram Sarup made three simple mortgages as follows; (1) on 26th July 1917 in favour of Gopi Nath; (2) on 16th November 1922 in favour of Raghubir Saran, (on this mortgage a decree has been obtained by Raghubir Saran on 11th January 1926) and (3) on 28th July 1926 in favour of Sahu Bhagwati Prasad and Sahu Jagdish Prasad, the respondents. One point to be noted is that the mortgage in favour of the respondents was executed at a date subsequent to the decree on the second mortgage which is now the decree under execution. It is therefore claimed that the provisions of Section 52, T.P. Act, apply in favour of the decree-holder. The third mortgage contained a provision that Rs. 2,100 were left for payment to Gopi Nath on the first mortgage, and on 29th July 1926 the same was actually paid to Gopi Nath amounting to Rs. 2,151-14-0 in full disc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »