Allahabad Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All865; 166Ind.Cas.763
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur under the following circumstances: Two persons, Darshan Singh and Ramgopal, were tried under Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act 6 of 1912, by a Magistrate. The accused Ram Gopal is a commission agent who has a shop and he stated:On 4th October 19S5 Darshan came to my shop and was sitting there and in the meantime Sanitary Inspector came there and purchased samples. He kept it in three bottles and duly sealed them. I did not expose that ghee for sale and I do not know if that ghee was pure or impure.2. On the evidence the Magistrate found that the ghee was impure in accordance with a sample analysed by the Public Analyst as it had a small proportion of fat or oil foreign to pure ghee. He convicted both the accused and the present reference is in regard to the conviction of Ram Gopal. The Magistrate held that Ram Gopal was a commission agent for some ghee and people bring ghee to his shop and sell through...
Mt. Razina Khatun and ors. Vs. Mt. Abida Khatun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All39; 166Ind.Cas.619
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought for a declaration that the properties in suit are owned and possessed by the plaintiff and cannot be attached and sold in execution of a decree obtained by the principal defendants against the plaintiff's husband. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rupees 52,000 was due to her as her dower from her husband and in satisfaction of that claim the husband transferred the property in suit to her on 4th January 1930 and got the sale deed registered, followed by mutation of names in her favour. Her case is that the defendants who have a money claim under an award, later incorporated in a decree, have no right to attach these properties. The defendants in their written statement denied that any dower was due to the plaintiff and pleaded that the sale deed relied on by her had been fraudulently and fictitiously executed without any consideration, with the intention dishonestly to evade payment of the defendant's decretal amount and...
Salek Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All851; 166Ind.Cas.198
ORDERAllsop, J.1. Salek Chand was an accused person in a criminal Court. He asked for an adjournment in order to enable him to apply to the High Court for transfer. The Magistrate adjourned the case on condition that a sum of Rs. 20 was paid by way of costs. Under Section 344, Criminal P.C., a Magistrate may adjourn a case on such terms as he thinks fit but this particular adjournment was one which was covered by the provisions of Section 526, Sub-section (8), Criminal P.C., and the Court had to grant it. It is true that the explanation to Sub-section (9) says that nothing contained in Sub-section (8) or Sub-section (9) restricts the powers of a Court under Section 344, but at the same time it is difficult to see how a Court can impose terms for granting an adjournment when it is bound to grant that adjournment whether the terms are accepted or not. It has been held in Sorabji M. Shrofi v. Erachshaw B. Katrak 1932 56 Bom 536 that costs should not be imposed in a case of this kind. The ...
Hakim Hidayat Ullah and ors. Vs. B. Gokul Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All57; 166Ind.Cas.823
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought for recovery of parjot, i.e., ground rent in respect of the site of a house occupied by the defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are the landlords, and in the plaint they alleged that there was a liability to pay parjot at the rate of ten annas a year out of which six annas a year was leviable on the plot in question on the basis of an agreement to pay such ground rent. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are entitled to get Re. 1-2-0 on account of the ground rent for the past three years which the defendants have not paid. The relief claimed was for a decree awarding Re. 1-2-0 on account of arrears of ground rent for the past three years with interest and costs. The defendants, while admitting that the plaintiffs were the landlords of the land and admitting that the defendants were occupying the site as ryots or tenants, denied that there was any liability to pay. In para. 4 of the written statement it was specifi...
Vishwa Nath Khanna Vs. Shiam Krishna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All819; 166Ind.Cas.47
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. Civil Revn. No. 62 of 1936 has been heard and disposed of with this Civil Revn. (No. 61 of 1936) as the same point arises in both the revisions. Both are defendant's applications in revision against the decrees of the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Dehra Dun, decreeing the plaintiff's opposite party's suits against him for recovery of the price of the necessaries supplied to him (defendant) by the plaintiff. The applicant's estate was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards at the time the necessaries were supplied. It has since been released. The defendant applicant's contention was that the suits were barred by Section 37, U.P. Court of Wards Act, and he was not liable for the price of the necessaries supplied to him. The learned Judge has held that Section 37, Court of Wards Act, does not exclude Section 68, Contract Act, and therefore the plaintiff were entitled to the price of the necessaries supplied by him under Section 68 Contract Act. The point ...
(Maulvi) Abdul Rab Vs. Hakim Mohammad Hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All801; 165Ind.Cas.681
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit. Before discussing the question of law involved it is necessary to set forth some facts. In the year 1905 Haji Ala Bakhsh, the grand-father of the plaintiff, made a wakf of certain landed property. He constituted himself mutwalli for his lifetime and directed that his grandsons, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brother should succeed him as mutawallis. After Haji Ala Baksh died a dispute arose between the plaintiff and his brother about the profits from the property. One of them had been collecting the rents and paying out the amounts which were charged upon the property under the wakf. He put in accounts in the Court of the District Judge of Pilibhit under the provisions of the Mussalman Wakf Act (40 of 1923). The other mutawalli objected to the account. It does not appear that the District Judge of Pilibhit had any jurisdiction to decide this dispute, but he sent for the parties and discussed ...
Moti Vs. Beni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All852; 166Ind.Cas.847
ORDERThom, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad directing that a certain girl, Mt. Chamelia, be allowed to remain in the custody of her mother. It appears that the girl's father, Beni, made a complaint against Chhote and others alleging that they had kept Mt. Chamelia, his daughter aged 12-13 years, in wrongful confinement. Following upon this complaint the City Magistrate issued a warrant under Section 100, Criminal P. 0., and Mt. Chamelia was taken from the house of Chhote Lal by the police and handed over to the custody of her mother. When the complainant had secured possession of his daughter, Mt. Chamelia, he requested the Court which was seized of the matter to dismiss the complaint. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. It transpired during the proceedings however that in fact the girl Mt. Chamelia had been married to one Moti. Moti was therefore, as the girl's lawful husband, entitled to the custody of his wife. The Spec...
Motiram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All758; 165Ind.Cas.734
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision. The case has a peculiar history. The applicant Moti Ram and three others were charged with an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and were tried by an Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 304, I.P.C. The Assistant Sessions Judge found that the accused did not have the common intention of causing death and he, therefore, acquitted all of them of having committed any offence punishable under Section 304, I.P.C. He convicted two of them including the present applicant Moti Ram of an offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt using for this purpose the provisions of Section 34, I.P.C. The two men who had been convicted appealed to the Sessions Judge. He came to the conclusion that the offence if it was committed was properly punishable under Section 304, I.P.C., and after issuing notice to the appellants to show cause why he should not order a re-trial, he did pass such an order and the case went back to the Assista...
Kan Kuar Vs. Atal Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All800; 165Ind.Cas.736
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of land. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not the land-holder and that the relationship of land-holder and tenant did not exist between the parties. Both the Revenue Courts below decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that no appeal lay to' his Court, but has also gone on to decide the appeal on the merits. The third appeal filed in this Court has been dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay to the District Judge. It is contended before us that an appeal lies because a question of proprietary right was in issue between the parties in the first Court and is in issue in appeal now. In support of this contention the learned advocate for the appellant relies on the cases in Gambhir Singh v. Surendra Singh 1930 ALJ 1065 and Sheo Dihal Dube v. Moti Lal Ahir 1935 AWR 489. These cases no doubt support his contention; but the last mentioned case was decided a few months before the decision ...
Pt. Bhagwan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All745; 166Ind.Cas.455
ORDERThom, J.1. Bhagwan Das, station master of a way side station of the E.I. Ry. Co., has been convicted under Section 101(a) and (b) Railways Act of 1890 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of the fine a further period of one month's simple imprisonment is added. The charge against him is that on 16th June 1935 he endangered the safety of certain persons by allowing a goods train to run on the loop line at a wayside station and by failing to satisfy himself that point 2 on the loop line was not properly set and by failing to have the keys of the point and the scotch block in his possession.2. There is no doubt that Bhagwan Das committed a breach of the rules in allowing the goods train to run over the loop-line. The main line was clear, and in these circumstances according to the rules, the goods train ought to have run through the station on the main line. On the day in question before the goods train was allowed to run on to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »