Allahabad Court January 1937 Judgments
Ayub Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All423
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. Criminal Revisions Nos. 989 and 990 of 1936 have been heard and disposed of with this Criminal Revision (No. 988 of 1936). All these applications are in revision against conviction under Rule 12(1) for breach of Rule 9(4) and against the sentence under Rule 12(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Rules, 1934. Rule 9(4) lays down:No deduction shall be made from the weight of the case on the ground that the cane is improperly stripped or on any other ground whatever:Provided that where cane is brought bound in bundles and weighed in bundles, a deduction not exceeding half a seer per full maund of cane may be made on account of the weight of the binding materials.2. This deduction of half a seer per maund is called 'karda'. The net weight of cane in these oases was (1) 11 maunds 20 seers; (2) 13 maunds 30 seers and (3) 13 maunds 30 seers. The applicant was entitled to a deduction of 5 1/2 seers from 11 maunds 20 seers and of 6 1/2 seers from 13 maunds 30 seers. The applicant was...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnath Singh and ors. Vs. Collector of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All628
Bennet, J.1. This is an application of one Bishnath Singh and others for review of judgment given by this Bench in F.A. No. 348 of 1932, Collector of Benares v. Bishnath Singh First Appea. No. 348 fof 1932. The plaintiff in that suit claimed for ejectment of the defendants as thekadars under Section 205, Act 3 of 1926, Agra Tenancy Act, and Section 84 of the Act, and he claimed that the condition of the theka had been broken and asked for the relief of cancellation of the lease and dispossession of the defendants. The lease in question was for payment of Rs. 111 per annum and was a lease granted on 18th December 1875, of the entire Mauza Batoli in favour of the father of the defendants. The trial Court had dismissed the suit and on appeal this Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment with costs. The present applicants are the defendants and the point which has been raised now for the first time is that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The plaint was value...
Tag this Judgment!ishaq and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All373
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ishaq Ahmad, Anis, Shamouddin, Ibrabim, Mt. Dhaneshri, Mt. Tileshari, Rahmat, Masood, Phul Mohammad and Mahbub against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur setting aside the order of discharge of the learned Committing Magistrate and ordering the accused to be committed to the Court of Session for trial. The accused have been charged under Sections 363, 366 and 368, I.P.C. The learned committing Magistrate has written a very long judgment discussing the evidence before him. He has criticized the evidence for the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge considered the same evidence and came to the conclusion that it was a case which ought to have been committed to the Court of Session. There can be no doubt that Magistrate cannot usurp the functions of a Sessions Court. There are three classes of cases, namely, (1) cases where the evidence is prima facie so clear that nobody can entertain any doubt that the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Lal Vs. Kunwar Hari Har Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All552
1. This is a defendant's first appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration. The facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties can briefly be stated as follows : Bhagwati Sahai, Kalka Sahai and Bhawani Sahai, three brothers, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Sunder Lal defendant on 29th September 1931 for a sum of Rs. 2,260. In 1927 Sunder Lal instituted Suit No. 80 of that year to recover the amount due on the basis of the mortgage deed in his favour. The sons of the three mortgagors with the exception of Hari Har Sahai, plaintiff 1, son of Kalka Sahai, were also made defendants to the suit. Three sons of Kalka Sahai were minors and he himself was appointed by the Court to act as their guardian.ad-litem. Similarly Bhawani Sahai was appointed guardian-ad-litem of his minor son and one Babu Ram was appointed guardian-ad-litem of Bhagwati Sahai's minor sons. The Court trying the suit decreed the suit of Sunder Lal on 15th October 1929. The judgment is printed a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kalawati Vs. Pundit Daya Nand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All362
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Aligarh, restoring an appeal which had been dismissed for default. It appears that in the appeal pending in the lower Court Bhojraj respondent died during pendency of the appeal. An application was made by the appellant that his legal representatives, Mt. Kalawati, Kishan Lal and Binda Prasad, be substituted for him. Notices were issued to these persons. Services were effected on Mt. Kalawati but not on the other two. The case was fixed for 20th November 1935, when the appellant failed to appear. The appeal was dismissed for default. Within 30 days of the dismissal, an application was made for restoration. In that application the names of Kishan Lal and Binda Prasad were mentioned but Mt. Kalawati was not mentioned. The lower Court accepted the allegations contained in an affidavit as regards the circumstances in which the appellant was prevented from a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Amna Khatoon Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All562
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. One Abdul Rahim had been employed on the B.B. & C.I. Ry. Co. and died leaving a widow, Mt. Amna Khatoon, his mother, Mt. Khooban, his brother, the present respondent Abdul Karim, and some minor children by his first wife. He had been a subscriber to the Railway Provident Fund and had first made a declaration nominating his wife and minor children as the persons entitled to receive the provident fund after his death but later cancelled that nomination and filed a fresh declaration nominating his mother, Mt. Khooban, as the sole nominee to receive the provident fund after his death. Shortly after his death his mother made a will in favour of the respondent Abdul Karim bequeathing the entire amount to him and then died a few months after. Abdul Karim having obtained a probate of the will from the Court of the District Judge realized the provident fund from the railway authorities. Thereupon the widow, Mt. Amna Kha...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Prasad and anr. Vs. Mt. Chameli Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All529
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by the plaintiff Mt. Chameli Kuar, wife of Liladhar, in respect of the properties transferred under a sale deed (p. 57) dated 12th September 1932, for Rs. 35,000, executed by defendants 3 - 6 in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The properties sold consisted of 7 pies out of 20 biswas in mahal Lakhi, Chak Ehtamali and Chak Mustaqil, of village Nagaria Fatehpur, as well as shares in another village Rampura Naogawan, with which we are not now concerned in appeal. The plaintiff claimed to be a co-sharer and alleged that the defendants vendees had been strangers to the mahal. The claim was contested on the main ground that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer in this mahal, but was a petty proprietor and as such was not entitled to claim the preemption. There were some other pleas also which have not been seriously pressed. In particular, there was a plea that the plaintiff's allegation that the proportionate value of t...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Batuk Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All561
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal in execution by a decree-holder who has lost his case before the two Courts below and also before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant had a simple money decree and in execution of that decree, he attached certain property belonging to the judgment-debtors. The objection taken by the judgment-debtors was that their interest was not attachable or saleable in execution of a civil Court decree and the Courts below have upheld that contention. On 10th February 1919 two zamindars granted a permanent lease to the judgment-debtors of six plots of land of an area of 8.29 acres. The lease was a permanent lease and it stated that the judgment-debtors had been tenants of these plots and that the plots were now being given on a permanent lease and it provided that the lease would be heritable and that any arrangements could be made which the lessees desired and permission was granted for the lessees to plant a grove or construct buildings. It was f...
Tag this Judgment!Parathnath and anr. Vs. Rameshwar Pratap Sahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All491
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order which purports to have been passed under Section 47, Civil P.C. It is not suggested that the order is not really one under Section 47, Civil P.C. and that therefore no appeal lies. The facts which led to the present appeal are as follows : The four houses in dispute in this case belonged to one Bishambhar who died a long time ago, leaving a son Narain, a widow Mt. Chunni and a daughter Mt. Shyam Sundar. The last named had a daughter whose sons the present appellants are. As a matter of fact, Narain was a posthumous son and died in infancy. Mt. Chunni and Mt. Shyam Sundar executed a deed of simple mortgage on 22nd September 1910 in lieu of Rupees 2635-10-0, hypothecating the four houses in dispute, in favour of Mt. Dulhin Radha Dulari Kunwar, who is now represented by Rameshwar Pratap Sahi, the respondent in this appeal. The mortgagee instituted a suit on foot of the mortgage against Mt. Chunni and Shyam Sundar. The suit was contested by...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid UddIn Vs. Akbar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All372
Niamatullah, J.1. I have heard this case at considerable length, and in my opinion the decree passed by the lower appellate Court must be upheld. After a careful consideration of the relevant papers I do not however find myself in agreement with that Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title to the land in dispute. It is perfectly clear that at a partition of the entire village in 1287 Fasli plot No. 255/2 was allotted to Patti Maharaj Bahadur, which now belongs to the plaintiff. The latter's case is that the present corresponding number is 69/B, a fact which is admitted by the defendant. In this view, there is no doubt left that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute. The learned District Judge has held to the contrary, because the plots said to be corresponding to No. 255/2 in certain quinquennial settlement were shown as parts of other pattis. This cannot be correct in view of what had happened at the partition of 1287 F. The entries at the quinquennial s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »