Allahabad Court March 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.
Kanchhed Mal Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All582
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court reversing a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs' suit was for a declaration that he was the owner of certain property set out in the plaint, and during the course of the proceedings in the Court of the learned Munsif the parties agreed to refer the questions in dispute to arbitration. Consequently one Shyam Lal was nominated as arbitrator, and in due course he made his award. The learned Munsif however set aside this award on the ground that at one stage in the proceedings the arbitrator appointed had refused to act and that thereafter he had no jurisdiction to make an award relating to the matters in dispute. Having set aside the award, the learned Munsif considered the plaintiffs' claim upon its merits and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed to the lower appellate Court and the learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal came to the conclus...
Jokhai Vs. Jawahir Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All500; 170Ind.Cas.17
ORDER1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Benares under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act. Two suits bad been filed by the plaintiffs zamindars against the defendant tenant for the possession of certain plots on the ground that the last tenant had died heirless, and that the defendant was a mere trespasser. The defendant raised the plea that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs, and an issue was framed by the Civil Court whether the relation of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The trial Court referred this issue to the Revenue Court which was the Court of an Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector first decided the issue in favour of the defendant having come to the conclusion that the defendant was the tenant of the plots in dispute.2. The zamindars then filed an application for review under Order XLVII, Civil Procedure Code which was granted and the previous finding was set aside and the Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was not the tenant of t...
Musammat Phul Mati Devi Vs. Lala Lila Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All476; 170Ind.Cas.113
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, against an order passed by the Munsif of Pilibhit in a case under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The applicant in this Court obtained a decree against the opposite party on foot of a promissory note before the passing of the Agriculturists Relief Act of 1934. The judgment-debtors made an application under Sections 4, 5 and 30 of that Act for the reduction of interest and for the decree being converted into one allowing payment by instalments. The decree-holder objected on various grounds, one of which was that the judgment-debtors were not agriculturists and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the Act. The lower Court held that they were agriculturists, and proceeded to consider the question whether interest should be reduced and how far the decree should be allowed to be satisfied by instalments. It is common ground between the parties that the judgment-debtor borrowed Rs. 1,00...
Robert Hercules Skinner Vs. Lt. James R.R. Skinner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All515
1. This appeal arises out of an application for restitution of property made under Section 144, Civil P.C., by Lieutenant James B.R. Skinner, executor and legal representative of the estate of Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner against Robert Hercules Skinner, Colonel S.E. Skinner administrator to the estate of Richard Boss Skinner and one T.I. Skinner. The litigation which has given rise to the present appeal before us can briefly be stated as follows : One Richard Ross Skinner owned extensive properties in the Punjab as well as in the United Provinces. He died intestate in the year 1913 and the properties left by him devolved upon his brother, George C. E. Skinner, and his sister, Alice Georgina Skinner, in equal shares. At the time of his death, Richard Ross Skinner was indebted to the Delhi and London Bank Ltd. Delhi and administration of his estate was granted to one Mr. Angelo, the Manager of the aforesaid Bank. On 18th June 1918, while the estate was still under administration, George ...
Mahtab Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All438
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10th November 1936 refusing the applicant's application for recalling the prosecution witnesses be set aside and the learned Magistrate be directed to re-summon and re-examine the prosecution witnesses. An inquiry under Section 110, Criminal P.C., is being made against Mahtab Singh. A part of the inquiry was made by Mr. T.L. Mahendra, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has been transferred and succeeded by Mr. Ram Gopal, who is continuing the inquiry from the stage as it was left by Mr. T.L. Mahendra. The applicant applied to Mr. Ram Gopal under Prov. (a), Section 350(1) Cri. P.C., to re-summon and re-hear the prosecution witnesses who were examined by his predecessor. Mr. Ram Gopal has rejected this application. The only question for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled under Prov. (a), Section 350(1), Criminal P.C., to demand that the witn...
Prag Das Vs. Beni Prasad Jaggu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All556
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad ordering the appellant to pay the difference between the prices fetched by certain property sold in execution of decree and purchased by the appellant on two occasions. The appellant had obtained a decree against the respondent Beni Prasad for a certain sum of money, and in execution thereof had the latter's house put to sale on 21st February 1934. His own bid of Rs. 1,450 was the highest. The auction-purchaser (decree-holder) was not, however, able to deposit the one-fourth of the purchase money there and then but requested the sale officer to allow him half an hour for the deposit of that sum. The sale officer acceded to this request, but the appellant did not return. The sale officer, who was the Court amin, proceeded to the appellant's house and demanded one-fourth of the price. The appellant failed to deposit it and the matter was reported to the Court, before whom the...
Krishna Chandra Pangoria Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All466; 170Ind.Cas.874
1. This is an appeal, by the accused from his conviction by the District Magistrate of Jhansi under Section 124-A. Indian Penal Code. He preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Jhansi which was heard and disposed of by Mr. Plowden who affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. Apparently it was overlooked by all concerned that no appeal lay to the Sessions Judge at all. Under Section 408(c), Criminal Procedure Code when a person is convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 124-A. Indian Penal Code, the appeal shall lie to the High Court and not to the Sessions Court. The order ox the Sessions Judge allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence was therefore without jurisdiction. We accordingly on the revisional side set aside that order. The present appeal was filed from jail beyond time. In view of the circumstances that an their appeal had been preferred under a mistake to the Sessions Court and was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, we think that there is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›