Allahabad Court January 1937 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.
Mt. Jaidevi Kuari Vs. Dakshini DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All300
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal has been ably argued by Mr. Babu Ram Avasthi, but in spite of his able arguments, I remain unconvinced. The dispute in the case was with respect to grove No. 1553. This grove belonged in equal shares to two persons named Chedi Lal and Sheo Prasad. The plaintiff-appellant is the daughter and successor-in-interest of Chedi Lal. By means of a sale deed dated 14th September 1889, Sheo Prasad sold his half share in the entire grove to one Bansidhar who was a benamidar of the father of the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents are, therefore, the successors-in-interest of Sheo Prasad.2. In the year 1916 dispute arose between Chedi Lal and the defendants' father as regards the possession of the southern half of the grove. The dispute culminated in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The criminal Court held that the defendants' father was in exclusive possession of and had 'prima facie title' to the southern half of the grove and accordingly wa...
Manni Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All305
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The question that arises in this case is whether the language of the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure justify an inference that an appellate Court when hearing an appeal under Section 476-B has the power to remand the case for further evidence to be taken or itself take further evidence. Before 1923 when the previous Code of Criminal Procedure was in force, there was no appeal provided from an order under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. The Legislature apparently thought that when there is a question whether prosecution should be ordered or not, the first Court which had examined the entire evidence should be the sole Judge. It is not necessary that there should be a right of appeal in every case, particularly when there is no final order convicting or acquitting the accused but merely a complaint in a case fit for further enquiry. The policy was somewhat changed by the amendment of 1923, while sanction to a complainant has been abolished, a right of a...
Radhe Shyam and ors. Vs. Firm Gopal Rai - Phool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All374
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand and arises from a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for setting aside a decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2 and the plaintiffs, who were minors and were represented in that litigation by defendant 2. To appreciate the position of the parties and the decisions of the two Courts below, the following facts have to be considered. Defendant 1 is a firm styled Gopal Rai Phool Chand, carrying on business at Ghazipur. Defendant 2, Raghunandan Prasad, carried on business in Zamaniah in the Ghazipur District in the name of Chhannu Lal Raghunandan Prasad. Chhannu Lal was the brother of Raghunandan Prasad and had died sometime before the transactions began, leaving several minor sons, who are plaintiffs in the present suit. One of these sons, Radhey Shyam, has since attained majority and is suing for himself and as guardian of his minor brothers. Raghunandan Prasad used to make purchases from the firm Gopal Rai Phoo...
Lala Man Mohan Das Vs. Syed Izhar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All449
1. This is a decree-holder's application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Allahabad, allowing an application of the judgment-debtor under Section 5, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The decree for money in this case was based on a compromise between the parties under which a certain amount was decreed, and carried future interest at Rs. 10 per cent, per annum. The Court below has granted a decree for instalments, and has also reduced the future interest to Rs. 3 per cent, per annum with effect from 15th December 1935. On behalf of the decree-holder, it is urged first that Section 5 of the Act has no application to a compromise decree at all and that accordingly no instalments should have been allowed; and secondly, it is contended 'that when an order for payment by instalments is made, future interest cannot be reduced under Section 4. He relies strongly on a case of the Oudh Chief Court, in Kailash Kuar v. Amar Nath A.I.R. 1936 Oudh 334. That case certainly supports the second co...
Bireshwar Das Bapuli and ors. Vs. Pandit Uma Kant Panday Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All297
1. This is a first appeal from order by certain applicants under Sections 5 and 30, United Provinces Agriculturists' Belief Act. A preliminary objection is taken that an appeal does not lie to this Court. In reply a reference was made to the fact that the property in question was valued at Rs. 30,000. But it is necessary to examine the language of the sections dealing with appeals. For Section 5 it is provided in Sub-section (2) that if the application is refused, the order of the Court shall be appealable to the Court to which the-Court passing the order is immediately subordinate.2. Now the Court which passed the order was a Court of a civil Judge of special jurisdiction under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Court to which that Court was immediately subordinate was the Court of the District Judge and accordingly so far as Section 5 is concerned, the appeal lies to the Court of the District Judge. As regards Section 30 which is in Ch. 4, there is no provision for an appeal from an...
Bhudeo Vs. Sm. Ram Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All369
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor who is a tenant of agricultural land, from the order of the District Judge, Aligarh, and arises from proceedings which purport to have been taken under Section 4, United Provinces Assistance of Tenants Act (Act 8 of 1932), which came into force on 11th August 1932. The respondent land-holder instituted a suit for arrears of rent against the appellant and obtained, a decree on 18th August 1933, that is, long after the passing of the aforesaid Act. The appellant made an application after the decree was passed for action being taken under the Act. The lower Courts have held that, the decree for arrears of rent having been passed after the Act came into force, no action thereunder could be taken. The point in controversy will appear from a perusal of Sections 2 to 4 of the Act, which were enacted as an emergency measure for relief being given to tenants in respect of arrears for the years 1337 and 1338 Pasli. Section 2 empowers the C...
B.N.W. Railway Co. Vs. Muneshwar Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All428
1. This is a second appeal by the defendant B.N.W. Railway Company against the decree passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the allegation that they had built their houses about 30 years ago in a village Musapur close to Azamgarh railway station and that in front of those houses there always existed a piece of vacant land and that the Railway Company has recently made trenches and ditches marking the boundary of the railway property apparently and that these constructions-rendered entry in an exit from the house of the plaintiffs almost impossible and interfere with their enjoyment of light and air and therefore with their right of easement. The plaintiffs prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making such constructions and for demolition of the constructions made. The defence of the Railway Company was that the land was the property of Government acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (Act No. 1 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›