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.
Lachmi Shanker Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All372
Allsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarh recommending that a sentence of fine passed on one Lachmi Shanker should be set aside. This Lachmi Shanker is a boy of about 15 years of age, the son of Ram Jatan. Ram Jatan is the licensee of a drug shop. The case for the prosecution which was instituted against both the father and the son was that the excise inspector went to the shop on the evening of 16th April, that he found Lachmi Shanker in charge of it and that Lachmi Shanker refused to let him inspect the shop with the result that he had to seek for police assistance and that thereafter when he did inspect the shop on the next day he found that certain breaches of the rules had been committed, namely that the licence was not produced, that there were some unsealed packets of drugs and that the stock was in excess of the book balance. The charges were therefore five, two relating to 16th April and three relating to 17th April. The father and the son were...
Mt. Jaffo Vs. Chitta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All443; 163Ind.Cas.650
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a share in zamindari properties. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of Rohtan who on his death left a widow Mt. Pana and a sister Mt. Umda. The plaintiff's case as put forward in the plaint was that the parties to the suit, namely, Mt. Jaffo and her sister, the daughters of Rohtan, on the one hand, and the defendant Mt. Umda, the sister, on the other, were Thakurs by caste and were originally governed by the Mitak-shara school of the Hindu law; that some time during the Mahomedan rule, the ancestors of the plaintiff and the two defendants in common with many other Thakurs embraced the Mahomedan religion and came to be known as Malkhana Thakurs, but in matters of succession and inheritance as well as in many other matters continued to be governed by the Hindu law and are so governed up to this date. The plaint then went on to allege that for over centuries since their conversion they had...
Hamid Ullah Vs. Ahmad Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All473; 163Ind.Cas.558
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit for the cancellation of a deed of gift which was executed by the plaintiff's sister, Mt. Aliman, now deceased. on 3rd May 1932, in favour of her husband who is the defendant in this suit on the ground that it was void and ineffectual. The subject matter of the gift was a 7/32 share in six houses and three pieces of land. The plaintiff alleged inter alia that the deed of gift was executed at a time of Marzul-maut, that no possession was given as required under the Mahomedan law, and that the deed of gift was also invalid by reason of the doctrine of Mushaa inasmuch as it was a gift of an undivided share in property which was capable of division. The trial Court dismissed the suit and that decree has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant pleads before us that the deed of gift was invalid by reason of non-delivery, and also under the doctrine of Mushaa. The r...
Uma Datt Upadhya Vs. Mt. Zakia Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All737
ORDER1. This application in revision raises an interesting question of law. The defendant is the applicant before us, and the facts are that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed for default of appearance on 1st August 1933. On 28th August 1933, the plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit. This application for restoration came for hearing on 19th May 1934. It appears that the plaintiff had not deposited process-fee for the opposite party till 12th May 1934, on which date the process-fee was tendered. The learned Munsif however refused to accept the process-fee and observed that there was no sufficient time left for the service of the notice in the ordinary course on the unserved opposite party. The result was that when the application for restoration came for hearing on 19th May 1934, the learned Munsif passed the following order:Notice could not be issued to upon (sic) opposite party 8 on account of the applicant's paying process-fee etc., as late as 12th May 1934. The application ...
Kewal Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.701
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh. Four persons were fined Rs. 25 each for cutting and removing crops alleged to have been attached on account of arrears of taqavi. The Magistrate found that the attachment had taken place and that the accused persons had removed the crops. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the conviction and sentences should be set aside in revision because a there is no evidence at all on the record to prove that the attachment was made.2. I have examined the statements made by the accused persons and I find that not one of them pretended that no attachment was made. Their defence was that they had not cut or removed the crops. A. Naib Tahsildar was examined and he said that the property had been attached on account of the fact that arrears of taqavi were due from one Kewal Singh. It seems unnecessary for me in revision to go into the question whether technically the provisions of the rules of eviden...
Ram Gopal Vs. Mt. Ganga Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All383; 163Ind.Cas.244
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by a defendant under the following circumstances: The plaintiff sued as zamindar and co-sharer in a certain village stating that defendant was simply a ryot. The plaint further set out that about 60 years ago Kallu Khan and Babbu Khan who were settled on theiland claimed by the plaintiff in the abadi went away for purpose of service and that in the year 1887 the then zamindar brought a suit for the ejectment of the father of the defendant from the house in question but the defendant's father at that time alleged that the house was in his possession on behalf of Babbu Khan and Kallu Khan, and that the Court dismissed the suit. The plaint further claimed that the land remained vacant for 20 years before the suit and that only three months before the suit the defendant had begun to build on it. The written statement was that defendant and his father had all along been in possession of the house in dispute and that the possession had originally ...
Dhara Singh Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All613
1. This is an appeal by Dhara Singh, defendant 1 in the suit, against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated 2nd September 1931. The plaintiff's claim against defendants 1 and 2 was for a declaration that certain property specified in the plaint could not be sold in satisfaction of a mortgage decree No. 103 of 1929 in a case to which he was not a party. The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows: The plaintiff Bharat Singh by name is the son of Har Narain, defendant 2 in the case. On 14th August 1917, defendant 2 executed a simple mortgage of certain property in favour of appellant-defendant 1 in the suit. The property which was mortgaged consisted of zamindari property and one house in the city of Meerut. The zamindari property comprised the entire khewat No. 1-2, mahal Gulab Singh, in the village of Kori Kamalpur, District Meerut. The consideration for the said mortgage was a sum of Rs. 4,000. In due course defendant 1 obtained a decree upon thi...
S. Zahoor Muhammad Khan Vs. Dr. M.X. De-noronha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.730
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal against an order dated May 5,1934, by which the 2nd Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore on appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit and sent the case back to it 'for trial de nova after allowing the amendment sought for in application dated November 46, 1931, giving further permission to the plaintiff to make any other matter clear in the plaint along with the said amendment.' It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Oawn-pore for the recovery of a certain sum of money and for the ejectment of the defendant from certain premises. In the plaint the plaintiff was described originally as M. X. de Noronha & Son, The Mall, Cawnpore. On an objection by the munsarim of the Court that the plaintiff appeared to be a firm and as such it should sue through a named individual, the plaintiff applied for amendment and prayed that the heading of the plaint should be M. X. de Noronha & Son through W. C. ...
Emperor Vs. Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All311
Allsop, J.1. The appellants are Lakhan Singh, Chhotey and Tulshi. They have been sentenced for an offence of dacoity under Section 395, I.P.C.: Tulshi to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and Lakhan Singh and Chhotey to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. They have appealed from jail and the local Government has made an application to us for the enhancement of the sentences passed upon them. The appellants are not represented in their appeal, but they have briefed counsel to oppose on their behalf the application made in revision. The offence was committed in the town of Nagina in the house of a woman called Mt. Allah Bachai. She was living alone with her two daughters Mt. Rashidan and Mt. Hamidan, girls of 15 and 12 respectively. She was awakened at night by a man catching her throat and asking her to tell him where her property was. She called for help and her two daughters tried to protect her. One of them received a blow on the head with a lathi and t...
Jia Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All357
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application by Jia Lal against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, upholding his conviction by a special Magistrate under Section 420, I.P.C. Originally no less than five persons were prosecuted for conspiracy to cheat under Sections 420/120-B, I.P.C. They were two brothers, Jia Lal (the applicant) and Moola, their uncle Badri Prasad, and cousin Khacheroo, and a stranger Parkashi. The case was instituted on a complaint by Kewal Ram, whose story was as follows:2. The applicant Jia Lal had a sister, Abha Dei, who had reached a marriageable age. Kewal Ram had a son, Lakhi Ram. All the five accused brought about an engagement of marriage between Mt. Abha Dei and Lakhi Ram on the condition that Kewal Ram would pay Rs. 100 immediately: Rs. 400 on receipt of the marriage letter and Rs. 200 at the time of the actual ceremony. Rs. 100 was paid, as agreed. It was further stipulated that, as soon as the sum of Rs. 400 was paid by Kewal Ram on r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »