Allahabad Court August 1936 Judgments
Lakhan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All788; 165Ind.Cas.769
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order convicting the accused who is the mukhia of a village under Section 177, I.P.C. On 5th July 1934, he signed a panchayatnama in the capacity of a mukhia which was to the effect that one Mt. Rajrani had died by having been drowned in the Jumna a day before. This panchayatnama was sent to the police and was believed by them to be true, and the Sub-Inspector went to the village to make an investigation. It was later ascertained that the information as absolutely false and that the girl was in fact alive and that the mukhia knew on that date that she was alive because she had in fact eloped with him The case against the accused was that knowing that she was alive and also knowing that she had eloped with him, the accused concealed that fact and was a party to supplying false information to the police that she had been drowned so that they may be put on a false scent. The Sub-Inspector addressed and sent to the Superintendent ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Anto Vs. Mt. Reoti Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All837; 166Ind.Cas.61
1. This was a suit by Mt. Anto for recovery of certain arrears of maintenance allowance by enforcement of a charge alleged to have been created under a hypothecation bond executed on behalf of her sons by the eldest of them. The contention raised on behalf of the defendants, who are subsequent transferees, was that the de facto guardian had no authority and power to hypothecate the property belonging to the minors and that accordingly no valid charge was created. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the deed of agreement under which the property in suit had been secured for the payment of the maintenance allowance was void and invalid and could not be enforced against the subsequent transferees to the extent of the shares of the defendants 2 to 5, who had been minors at the time. It appears that the property had originally belonged to one Shaikh Abu who, on his death left two daughters, a wife and five sons, and the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Wahid Khan Vs. District Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All856; 166Ind.Cas.228
ORDER1. This is a reference by the civil Court, the Munsif of Hawali, Bareilly, in regard to a certain issue 3(a): 'is the suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, maintainable in respect of ferry rights to collect toll on the river?' The plaintiff is a lessee for a period of three years from the District Board, Bareilly, and plaintiff claims under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, to recover possession of the ferry from the District Board. The plaintiff alleged that during the continuance of his lease the District Board dispossessed him. On behalf of the plaintiff reference was made to Krishna v. Akilanda (1890) 13 Mad 54. That was a case where the owners of immoveable property had a claim to a right of ferry and it was held that such a claim amounted to immoveable property within the meaning of Section 9, Specific Relief Act. That section states:If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immoveable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming thro...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad and anr. Vs. Lala Bool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All19; 166Ind.Cas.615
ORDER1. The question referred to this Bench is whether the appellant can claim as of right that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of two Judges of this Court. The valuation of the appeal is Rs. 1,200 and at the time when it was filed it was cognizable by two Judges under the rules made by this Court. Recently the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Single Judge has been raised up to Rupees 2,000 and the appeal is now cognizable by a Single Judge. The learned Counsel for both the parties urge before us that there was a substantive right vested in the appellant to have the appeal heard by a Bench of two Judges only and not by a Single Judge. No doubt it is well established that the right of appeal is a substantive right and any rule taking away the right of appeal cannot have a retrospective effect so as to destroy that right. But under Section 100, Civil P.C., the appellant had a right of appeal to the High Court from the decree passed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge on the grounds ment...
Tag this Judgment!Tej Bahadur and ors. Vs. (Firm) Kothi Radha Kishan-gopi Kishan and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All858; 166Ind.Cas.182
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon the foot of a simple mortgage bond which was executed by one Mt. Janki Kunwar on 11th November 1898. The claim was for Rs. 21,000; but there was also an alternative prayer for possession of the property and for recovery of Rs. 10,000 as interest by way of damages. The mortgagor was a pardanashin lady and was a widow, her husband having died as long ago as 1878. The bond in suit was for Rs. 11,000 and the mortgaged property consisted of a four annas share in each of four villages. It was stipulated that a sum of Rs, 850 should be paid annually as interest and that in default of payment in any year the mortgagees should have a right after four months' grace to enter into possession of two of the mortgaged shares and recover the balance of interest due to them at the rate of Re. 1-4-0 per cent. per mensem. The period agreed upon for payment of the mortgage money was 10 years and the mortgagor was given a right to redeem the property at any...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chander and ors. Vs. (Pandit) Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All870; 166Ind.Cas.908
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a principal sum, with interest and costs by enforcement of a charge against the properties mentioned in the plaint and also for the enforcement of the personal liability of the defendants. It appears that there was a previous mortgage debt on the properties belonging to the plaintiff's predecessor on 12th November 1919, on which date he executed a sale deed in favour of defendants' predecessor of part of his property leaving Rs. 621 in the hands of the vendee for the discharge of the previous mortgage. The earlier mortgage carried interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem compoundable every year and was dated 7th November 1909. It is an admitted fact that the vendee did not discharge the debt. The result was that the mortgagee brought a suit for sale on the basis of his mortgage impleading both the mortgagor and the vendee. The case was fought out up to the High Court and was ultimately decreed, and the amount d...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Sahai Vs. Wali HussaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All189
ORDERBennet, J.1. In this case a complainant Raghubir Sahai applies in revision against the orders of a Magistrate and of the District Magistrate in revision refusing to allow the complainant to produce a further witness against the accused. The accused persons were being tried under Sections 379 and 426, I.P.C., in the Court of the Tahsildar and a charge sheet was framed against them on 27th February 1936 and they pleaded not guilty to that charge sheet. The 29th February was fixed for the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution and those witnesses were cross-examined. It was after this stage that the complainant claimed that he could summon an entirely new witness, the moqaddam of his master, whom he had not previously mentioned. On 10th February 1931 the complainant had given a list of prosecution witnesses under Section 252(2), Criminal P.C. and the name of this moqaddam was admittedly not in that list. The complainant also desired certified copies of certain partiti...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gurmanj Saran Vs. Radha Swami Sat Sang Sabha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All759; 165Ind.Cas.721
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision asking that three orders passed by the District Magistrate of Agra should be set aside. These orders were passed as a result of a dispute between the two sections of the believers in the Radhaswami religion. These two sections are known as the Dayal Bagh and the Swami Bagh sections. According to the believers in the Radhaswami faith, there is always some person who is the incarnation of the deity. The dispute between the two sections is about the identity of this person at the present time. The person who is the incarnation of the deity is known as a guru. There have been a number of former gurus some of whom were accepted as such by all the followers of this faith. The ashes of one of these accepted gurus are in a building or place in Agra. This building or place has been in possession of the representatives of the Swami Bagh section for a number of years. In 1923 two members of the Dayal Bagh section made an application to the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Malkhan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All762; 165Ind.Cas.698
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh recommending that an order under Section 482, Criminal P.C., by a Magistrate for the prosecution of one Thakur Malkhan Singh, Advocate, under Section 228, I.P.C., should be set aside but that the trial of this person under Section 189, I.P.C., should proceed. The facts are that a Magistrate who had been sitting as a returning officer passed an order on 12th December 1935 to the effect that he was disposing of certain revenue cases and he was interrupted by Thakur Malkhan Singh, intentionally and also threatened by him. The position taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that the interruption was on the previous day, the 11th December, and that the order should have been passed on that day and not on the 12th December. The argument of learned Counsel which has been accepted by the Court below is that an order under Section 482, Criminal P.C., must be passed on the day on which the offence occurs, T...
Tag this Judgment!Mahatab Singh and ors. Vs. Raja Durga NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All811; 166Ind.Cas.351
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two suits instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of rent. The facts briefly stated are these: In 1925, the plaintiff-respondent instituted four suits, namely 827, 833,933 and 1266 for enhancement of rent in respect of the four holdings which were held jointly by Mehtab Singh, Jadunath Singh, Phul Singh, Lakhan Singh and Partab Singh. In those suits decrees for enhancement of rent were passed on the basis of compromise. The plaintiff on the strength of the compromise decrees instituted four suits for the recovery of rent at enhanced rates. In the two appeals before us, we are only concerned with the two of those' four suits, namely Nos. 7 of 1930 and 591 of 1932, and have no concern with the other two suits. In defence the defendants of these two suits pleaded that the decrees for the enhancement of rent passed on the basis of a compromise in the year 1925, are not binding upon them as at the time when the compromise ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »