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.
Gaya DIn Vs. Lalta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All477; 163Ind.Cas.554
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff against an order of learned Munsif of Kanauj dismissing his application for restoration of a suit which was dismissed for default. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed for default on 12th April 1934 the date which was fixed for the final hearing of the suit. On 13th April 1934 an application was made by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit: this was followed on 15th September 1934 on condition of payment of Rs. 8 for costs to the opposite party on or before 27th October 1934. In case of default the application was to stand as dismissed. Rs. 4 were paid on 15th September 1934 to the opposite party and the balance was not paid up to 27th October 1934. On 29th October 1934 an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for permission to pay the balance and for direction to the opposite party's counsel to receive it. The learned Munsif dismissed this application on the ground that he had no power to extend the time for paymen...
Behari Lal Vs. Ale Nabi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All626
1. This is a first appeal from order by an auction-purchaser. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are quite simple. Chiraunji Lal had a decree against one Jagdish Prasad. In execution of this decree he put up for sale the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor. The sale took place on 2nd September 1931. The property was purchased by Behari Lal, applicant, who paid one-fourth of the sale price on that very date. The balance of the sale price was deposited in the Imperial Bank by Behari Lal on 11th September 1931. On this date Ale Nabi, who had a claim against Jagdish Prasad, judgment-debtor, obtained a decree and immediately took a transfer certificate and presented it to the Munsarim of the Court in which the decree of Chiraunji Lal was being executed. He made an application for rateable distribution of assets. It so happened that the Munsarim of the Court refused to accept the application on the ground that it had been made after 3 p. m. Ale Nabi made an application und...
Munni Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All361
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision by Munni Lal who has been convicted under Section 14, Dangerous Drugs Act, in that he sold cocaine. The Excise Inspector, Mr. Jagdamba Prasad, informed the District Excise Officer, Mr. Abbasi, that the applicant Munni Lal was in the habit of selling cocaine and that he had done so a number of times during the ten or twelve days preceding. It was arranged that the informer of Mr. Jagdamba Prasad should purchase cocaine from Munni Lal in the presence of Mr. Surya Narain, a Deputy Collector, who had been recently transferred to Allahabad. The informer and Mr. Surya Narain proceeded to the house of the accused who was found standing at his door. The informer handed over a currency note of Rs. 10 to Manni Lal and asked for cocaine. Munni Lal demanded an additional sum of 8 annas but on the informer asking him to remit that sum he accepted Rs. 10 for the two packets of cocaine which he brought out from the house and handed them over t...
Gopal Datt and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All653
1. This is a second appeal by defendants against a decree of the lower appellate Court passed against him for the rent of a house. The suit was brought by an idol through one Babu Ram described as sarbarakar and manager of the idol. There are two points in this second appeal, the first of which is that the lower Court was not justified in taking into evidence a mukhtarnama dated 1st December 1926. The lower appellate Court has found as its conclusion that Babu Ram was the de facto manager of the temple not only on this mukhtarnama but also on discarding the mukhtarnama on the oral evidence. This mukhtarnama was not proved in the lower Court, but it was admitted in evidence by the lower appellate Court. It purported to have been executed on 1st December 1926, by Mul Chand, deceased, who was the manager of the temple and the successor of Badri Prasad, who made the original endowment of the temple. We are of the opinion, in any case, that as the lower Court acted on the evidence other tha...
Ram Bharosey Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All833; 166Ind.Cas.430
Niamat Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Bharosey who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Fatehgarh under Section 302, Penal Code, for causing the death of Brij Nandan by administering arsenic poison on 6th June 1935. He has also been convicted of an offence under Section 328, Penal Code, that is, administering poison for the purpose of committing theft. He has been sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302 and to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 328.2. The deceased was distantly related to the appellant and was a petty hawker going about with a bundle of cloth to various villages. He was resident of a village called Barauli in the District of Aligarh. The case for the prosecution is that he left his home several days before he was found dead on the morning of 7th June 1935 at a little distance from the road leading from Fatehgarh to the Ganges. He is said to have had on his person two gold rings and 60 or 70 rupees in currency notes when he ...
Shok Haran Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Faqir Chand Sarju Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All452; 163Ind.Cas.672
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought for a declaration that the property in dispute belongs to the plaintiffs who are members of a joint Hindu family, and not to defendant 2, though he also is a member of the same joint family, and that accordingly the property is not attachable and saleable in execution of a simple money decree in favour of defendant 1 against defendant 2. The plaintiffs relied on a document called the deed of relinquishment, dated 1st February 1929, executed by defendant 2 within a few months of his attainment of majority. Under this deed defendant 2 purported to relinquish all his interest in certain specified properties which at that time were admittedly joint family properties. He did not intend to separate from the family and continued to be a joint member of the family, and indeed provided that his wife and children would be supported and maintained by the plaintiff 1, the elder brother, and that the latter would meet the e...
S. Shaukat Ali Vs. B. Sheo Ghulam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All663; 165Ind.Cas.124
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad. It appears that one Mt. Kulsuman Bibi, who is defendant 2 in the present suit, was indebted to Mt. Kasturi and to Sheo Ghulam. Mt. Kasturi held a mortgage and on the basis of that mortgage she brought a suit for sale, impleading Mt. Kulsuman, the mortgagor, and Sheo Ghulam, the subsequent mortgagee. She obtained a final decree on 28th October 1927 and applied for execution of the decree by sale of the mortgaged property. The property was advertised to be sold on 21st January 1929, but the sale was avoided because on 5th January 1929 Mt. Kulsuman sold the property to the plaintiff Shaukat Ali for Rs. 8,000. The details of the sale consideration are that:Rs. a. p. 6,321-10-0 were to go towards the payment of the decretal amount due to Mt. Kasturi. 278-6-0 were paid for costs of executionand registration.400-0-0 were paid as earnest money. 1,000-0-0 were paid in cash b...
Ram Bahal Ahir and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All364
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur has made a reference to this Court recommending that a sentence of fine passed on four persons, Ram Bahal, Sita, Jaddu and Ram Autar, should be set aside in revision. These four men were convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 424, I.P.C., and were fined a sum of Rs. 15 each. The allegation was that their standing crops had been attached by the civil Court and that they had forcibly removed the crops. The learned Sessions Judge has made the reference upon the ground that the crops had already been attached by an order of the revenue Court and that they had been sold in pursuance of that attachment and upon the ground that the civil Court attachment was not valid owing to a failure on the part of the amin to observe the provisions of Rule 44, Order 21, Civil P.C. The learned Magistrate went into the question whether the crops attached by the civil Court had already been attached by the revenue Court and found that th...
FariduddIn Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All313
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150 for making a false report to the police. The fine was imposed under the provisions of Section 182, I.P.C. The report made was to the effect that a man called Nawab had been seen near the shop of the applicant disguised in a burqa armed with a knife and asking for one Ram Dayal. The Magistrate has found that the report was absolutely false. It has been suggested that 110 offence was committed under Section 182, I.P.C., because the report was not the report of a cognisable crime. The question of course is not whether the report was one of a cognisable crime but whether it was of such a nature as might be supposed to lead the police to make use of their lawful powers to the injury or annoyance of any person. The suggestion in the report was clearly that Nawab was going about armed and disguised in order to murder or cause serious injury to Ram Dayal. The police on receiving that report w...
Hafiz Mohd. Rafiq Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All319
ORDERAllsop, J.1. These are two applications in revision. The applicant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on two counts, i.e., for receiving and retaining two stolen bicycles knowing or having reason to believe that they were stolen. It is argued in the first place that the learned Magistrate was not entitled to pass a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months because it must be assumed that this was a summary trial upon the ground that the Magistrate made only a memorandum of the evidence of the witnesses and did not record their evidence in the language of the Court or have it so recorded. This argument is based upon a misconception. It overlooks the provisions of Section 355, Criminal P.C. There are certain offences which a Magistrate may try summarily under the provisions of Section 260, Criminal P.C. If he does so try them he is not required to make any memorandum of the evidence at all. If he does not try them under the provision...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »