Allahabad Court July 1936 Judgments
B. Debi Charan Lal Vs. Khushal Rai Ratan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All763; 165Ind.Cas.654
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench on account of the importance of the question raised in this case as to whether a second appeal at all lies. It appears that the decree-holder obtained a simple money decree against the judgment-debtor, which was put in execution and the judgment-debtor's right and interest in a certain property were sought to be sold. The judgment-debtor objected that his particular share should be specified, but did not offer any information to the Court as to the extent of his share. The decree-holder did not agree to be tied down to any particular share of the judgment-debtor in the property put up for sale. The property as entered in the proclamation of sale was put up for sale and was purchased at auction by the decree-holder himself. An application was then made by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 90, to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity in publishing the sale inasmuch as the exact share of the judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Mustafai Begam Vs. Raghuraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All108
1. First Appeals Nos. 401, 425 and 459 of 1932 arise out of Suit No. 19 of 1931 filed by Raghuraj Singh against the defendant. The first two appeals are appeals by defendants while the third one is an appeal by the plaintiff. There were two simple mortgages of 17th August 1915 and 30th August 1916 executed by the plaintiff's father, Madho Singh, and others in favour of the defendant-appellant, Mt. Mustafai Begum, on the basis of which she brought a suit on 5th June 1919 for foreclosure. Her case was that there had been a previous agreement between the parties to consolidate the two mortgage deeds into one. Ultimately the parties agreed and on 12th June 1919 deed of mortgage by conditional sale was executed under which the amounts due under the previous documents were consolidated. This mortgage-deed was executed by a very large number of persons who practically represented all the adult members of the plaintiff's family, including near collaterals. The present plaintiff was a minor at ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Mustafai Begum Vs. Raghuraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.577
1. First Appeals Nos. 401, 425 and 459 of 1932 arise out of Suit No. 19 of 1931 filed by Raghuraj Singh against the defendant. The first two appeals are appeals by defendants while the third one is an appeal by the plaintiff. There were two simple mortgages of August 17. 1915, and August 30, 1916, executed by the plaintiffs father, Madho Singh, and others in favour of the defendant-appellant, Musammat Mustafai Begum, on the basis of which she brought a suit on June 5, 1919, for foreclosure. Her case was that there had been a previous agreement between the parties to consolidate the two mortgage deeds into one. Ultimately the parties agreed and on June 12, 1919, deed of mortgage by conditional sale was executed under which the amounts due under the previous documents were consolidated. This mortgage-deed was executed by a very large number of persons who practically represented all the adult members of the plaintiff's family, including near collaterais. The present plaintiff was a minor...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kamni Began Vs. Bashir Ulzaman Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All695
Allsop, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a criminal case from the Court of a Magistrate in the Naini Tal District. The case arose out of a complaint that the accused persons had entered the complainant's house and used violence towards her. One of the persons accused was discharged by another Magistrate, and after that there was an application in revision against the order of discharge and an application for the transfer of the case. The application for revision was rejected, but the application for transfer was allowed because the Magistrate had discussed the evidence for the prosecution in his order of discharge and it was supposed that he might be considered to have formed some final opinion about its value so as to prejudice him in deciding the case of those accused who were still being tried. The case was delayed when it came to the Court which is now trying it because proceedings were stayed till orders were received upon the application for revision. The case came...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Har Datt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All743; 165Ind.Cas.465
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the order of acquittal passed by Mr. Kailash Chandra Trivedi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Almora. Hardatt, driver of Bus No. 467, was prosecuted by the Municipal Board of Almora for the non-payment of toll tax in respect of the lorry brought by him within the Municipal limits on 15th November 1934 through the toll barrier situated at Shialidhar at a distance of 3 miles from the town of Almora and breach of bye-laws Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted Hardatt on the ground that no breach was committed by him as the toll tax had all along been realized from passengers travelling in a lorry or a car and had never been realized so far from the drivers. It appears from his judgment that he is under the impression that the tax is leviable on the passengers. Bye-laws Nos. 1 and 3 are:(1) No person shall bring within the limits of the Almora Municipality any laden vehicle or laden animal or riding ponies or mules or jhampans, dandie...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Kamni Begam Vs. Bashir Ulzaman Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.20
Allsop, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a criminal case from the Court of a Magistrate in the Naini Tal District. The case arose out of a domplaint that the accused persons had entered the complainant's house and used violence towards her. One of the persons accused, was discharged by another Magistrate, and after that there was an application in revision against the order of discharge and an application for the transfer of the case. The application for revision was rejected, but the application for transfer was allowed because the Magistrate had discussed the evidence for the prosecution in his order of discharge and it was supposed that he might be considered to have formed some final opinion about its value so as to prejudice him in deciding the case of those accused who were still being tried. The case was delayed when it came to the Court which is now trying it because proceedings were stayed till orders were received upon the application for revision. The case cam...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All742; 165Ind.Cas.689
ORDER1. The applicant in this case was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 379, I.P.C., read with Section 39, Electricity Act, for the theft of electricity. It was found by the Magistrate that he had interfered with the electric meter and consequently had used electricity with the intention of not paying for it. The facts certainly constitute an offence punishable under the sections. Whether the facts occurred was a question to be decided by the Courts below, and both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge in appeal have found against the applicant. The point urged before us is a legal one. It is said that the Magistrate should not have taken cognisance of the case because under Section 50, Electricity Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for an offence against the Act except at the instance of the Government or the Electric Inspector or the person aggrieved by the same. In this case it was the police who instituted the prosecution. There are really two qu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›