Allahabad Court May 1936 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Badalwa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All689; 165Ind.Cas.259
1. This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of five men who were charged with offences under Sections 6 and 7, Opium Smoking Act. They were convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to various fines; Badalwa and Chandrika Prasad were also sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. There was a previous conviction against Chandrika Prasad. They appealed to the Sessions Judge who held that the facts were as found by the Magistrate but allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants because he was of the opinion that the trial was illegal. His reason for so thinking was that the Magistrate who tried these men and convicted them had previously issued a warrant of search under Section 9, Opium Smoking Act, and it was in consequence of that search that these men had been found in the house of one of them together with apparatus for the smoking of opium. The learned Judge has relied upon the case in Emperor v. Shyam Behari 1934 All 987. That was a case under the Gambl...
Tag this Judgment!Deokinandan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All753; 165Ind.Cas.701
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether a village chowkidar appointed under the Act is a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25, Evidence Act. Now obviously there are two views which are open. As the word 'Police Officer' has not been defined in the Evidence Act, one may understand by it what is understood in common parlance as indicating an officer belonging to the police force, or one may refer to the Police Act and Police Regulations for the purpose of ascertaining who is a Police Officer. Under Act 20 of 1856 a body of persons called chowkidars were those whose number and grade of salary had to be fixed by Magistrates and whose appointments were made by Magistrates under the control of the Commissioner. Their appointment, suspension and dismissal were not in the hands of the superior police authorities. Act 5 of 1861 defined the word 'police' as including all persons who were enrolled under that Act. The superior officers were mentioned in Sect...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Gautam Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All561
ORDER1. These are applications under Section 99-B, Criminal P.C., made to the High Court to set aside two orders of the Local Government under which printed translations of two books made by the applicants have been declared forfeited. The main point for consideration is whether these books or any of them contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 124.A or Section 153-A, I.P.C. It is clear from Section 99-D that if this Special Bench is not satisfied that they contain matters of such objectionable nature, we must set aside the order of forfeiture.2. The first book is a Hindi translation of Lenin's 'imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism' together with the publisher's announcement and the prefaces to the French and the German editions. Lenin wrote this pamphlet in Zurich in the spring of 1916 during a time when the Great War was in progress. The book was written, as the author himself admitted, 'with an eye to the Tsarist Censorship,' and was therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sheo Kumari and ors. Vs. Mathura Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All657
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal arising out of proceedings taken by Mathura Ram under Section 25, Guardians and 'Wards Act.2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings can very briefly be stated as follows: Mathura Ram instituted a suit in the civil Court for restitution of conjugal rights. He alleged that Mt. Sheo Kumari had been married to him. The suit, it appears, was contested by Mt. Sheo Kumari who is a minor, but it was decreed and the decree of the first Court was confirmed in second appeal by this Court. After the termination of the proceedings in the civil case, Mathura Ram made an application to the District Judge in which one of the prayers was that he should be appointed guardian of his wife Mt. Sheo Kumari. That application has been refused. The other prayer made by him was that he should be given the custody of his wife. The application was opposed by Mt. Sheo Kumari. The learned District Judge under his order, dated 18th August 1934, allowed the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Manbhari Vs. Pt. Sri Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All672; 165Ind.Cas.240
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court reversing a decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff Sri Ram sued for possession of certain property and also for damages for the wrongful cutting and removal of certain trees in a grove which form part of the property in dispute. The learned Munsif who tried the case came to the conclusion that the sale deed upon which the plaintiff relied to establish his title was a fictitious document and that it gave the plaintiff no right of ownership or possession and that such rights still remained in the vendor who was the husband of the defendant, Mt. Manbhari, the present appellant in the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and held that the plaintiff Sri Ram was the owner of the property and that he was entitled to possession and damages in respect of the trees which had been cut. He however pointed out in h...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All676; 165Ind.Cas.167
Sulaiman, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for remission of certain water and house taxes alleged to have been illegally charged from him by the Municipal Board, Cawnpore. His case was that the premises were vacant for the period for which the amount had been charged and that he was entitled to a refund under Section 151, Municipalities Act. The Court below has held that the suit is not maintainable. The Bench before which the revision came up for disposal has referred to us the following question for answer:Whether a suit, brought for remission or refund of certain house and water taxes charged by a Municipal Board for the period during which the plaintiff alleges the premises to have remained vacant, and claims remission under Section 151, Municipalities Act, is barred by Section 164 of the Act.2. Ordinarily a suit for recovery of money due is a suit of a civil nature and would be cognizable by a civil Court under Section 9, Civil P.C., unless the claim is barred by a...
Tag this Judgment!Khichumal Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All701; 165Ind.Cas.694
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an objection by the Taxing Officer that the memorandum of appeal has not been properly stamped inasmuch as instead of one impressed stamp of Rs. 45 one impressed stamp of Rs. 40, and one adhesive label of Rs. 5 have been used. This impressed stamp and the label were purchased from the stamp vendor who has been posted in the High Court by the Government. The stamp vendor is a Government servant and is attached to the Allahabad Treasury and is under the Treasury Officer as he states. Rule 24 of the Stamp Manual says:When, in the case of fees exceeding Rs. 20, the amount can be denoted by a single impressed stamp, the fee shall be denoted by a single impressed stamp of the required value. But if the amount cannot be denoted by a single impressed stamp, or if a single impressed stamp of the required value is not available, an impressed stamp of the next lower value available shall be used, and the deficiency shall be made up by the use of one or more additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Piyare Lal Vs. Hasan Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All708; 165Ind.Cas.402
Harries, J.1. This is a decree-holder's second appeal against an order of the lower appellate Court reversing the order of the Court of first instance which disallowed the judgment-debtor's objection. The facts of the case are brief and can be stated as follows: On 3rd November 1909 the judgment-debtor effected a usufructuary mortgage of certain zamindari property in favour of the present decree-holder. On the same date the mortgagee, now the decree-holder, leased the mortgaged property to the mortgagor and at the same time the latter executed a kabuliat by which he agreed to pay a certain rental for the property. The mortgagor, now the judgment-debtor, fell into arrears during the years 1334 to 1336-F, and on 15th November 1929 the mortgagee, now the decree holder, obtained a decree for the arrears of rent. On 3rd February 1930 he applied to eject the judgment-debtor and later sought to attach the judgment-debtor's equity of redemption and to have the same put up for sale. The judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Chunna Mal Vs. Bhagwant Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All584
Sulaiman, C.J. and Bennet, J.1. On the facts as given in the order of reference it appears that the opposite party filed an application for permission to sue as a pauper on 17th August 1934. There was some inquiry as to his pauperism and the application was opposed by the defendant as well as by the Government Pleader. On 29th September 1934, the Court held that the applicant was not a pauper and rejected the application with costs. On 1st October 1934 the applicant filed another application purporting to be under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for review of the previous order on the ground that some evidence had not been recorded and that he was in fact a pauper, and also asking that the Court should have allowed the applicant time to deposit the necessary court-fee. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no case made out for review of the order so far as it held that the applicant was not a pauper and should not be allowed to sue as a pauper, but ordered that he shou...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Suraj Pali Vs. Ariya Pretinidhi Sabha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All686; 165Ind.Cas.1
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order refusing to allow an amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff applied that the word 'defendants' should be added in para. 2 where-from, according to her, it had been omitted by mistake. The case has been referred to a Full Bench owing to a conflict of opinion in this Court on the question whether the refusal to allow an amendment of a plaint is a case decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C., or not. That there has been an unfortunate conflict of opinion in this Court cannot be denied. Confining attention to the cases dealing with revisions from orders either allowing or refusing amendments of plaints, and not considering other cases, for instance applications for setting aside ex parte decrees or for setting aside awards or for applying to sue in forma pauperis, etc., the cases in favour of the applicant are as follows: In Kishan Lal v. Ram Chandra 1933 ALJ 268 the Court below had definitely debarred the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »