Allahabad Court November 1938 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.
Bafati Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All95
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the-learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad which I think must be accepted. A Magistrate-convicted two persons Bafati and Bachan of an offence under Section 261, Municipalities Act, because they made a hole in the side of a drain leading from the city through some fields to the river. This was a municipal drain and it is obvious that Bafati and Bachan had no right to interfere with it, but the learned Sessions Judge thinks, and I believe rightly, that any offence they may have committed was not punishable under Section 261, Municipalities Act. This Section is in the following terms:Whoever displaces, takes up or makes an alteration in or otherwise interferes with the pavement, gutter, flags or other materials of a public street or the fences, walls or posts thereof shall be punished.2. The place where the hole was made in the drain is certainly not in a street in any ordinary sense of that term. It is out in the fields. It was apparently argued befo...
Lachhmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All156
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh recommending to this Court to set aside the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under Sections 147, 353 and 225, I.P.C. but instead to convict them under Section 352, I.P.C. and to impose on each of them a line of Rs. 25 or in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks. Prom the order of reference it appears that Lachhmi Narain, Pearey Lal, Budh Sen, son of Chandar Bhan, Budh Sen, son of Chhatar Mal, Surji, Kanhaiya, Ganga Ra, and Pita were convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 147, 353 and 225, I.P.C. upon the ground that they forcibly rescued one Kaley from the custody of four police constables who had arrested him in execution of a warrant issued by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates in a case in which he was charged with offences under Sections 323 and 426, I.P.C. There was a scuffle between these men and the constables and the coat of one of the constables was torn.2. The le...
Sri Maharaja Saheb Bahadur Through SatnaraIn Lal Mukhtaram and ors. Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All210
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by the zamindar in the Revenue Court under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act, for the ejectment of the defendants on the allegation that they were trespassers and for the recovery of Rs. 302: as damages. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit for ejectment and for the recovery of Rs. 253-10-0 as damages. Some of the defendants appealed to the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and has dismissed the suit. The land in question is an occupancy holding of which one Sheonandan Lal was the tenant in the year 1883. On 1st June in that year Sheonandan. Lal had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Bhawani Dayal Singh, a predecessor in title of the principal contesting defendants-respondents. In the year 1892 proceedings for ejectment were taken by the zamindar against the mortgagor and the mortgagee. In these proceedings there was a compromise on 16th May 1892 by which the defe...
Chandrika Prasad Vs. Mt. Bhagwati Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All228
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. On 22nd May 1932, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. The plaintiff in the decree was directed to deposit within one month the sum of Rs. 2150, and Rs. 186-4-0 in name of costs which were awarded to him under the decree. On 20th June 1932, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 2150. On 1st July 1932 he applied for possession and ho further prayed that he might be permitted to realize the amount awarded to him in name of costs by attaching the sum deposited. The defendant appealed against the order of the trial Court. The appeal was decided on 11th November 1933. The Appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's suit conditionally upon his depositing a sum of Rs. 2650 within three months. The Court further awarded the plaintiff Rs. 169-10-0 and to the defendant Rs. 92-7-0 in name of costs. The decree did not comply strictly with the provisions of Order 20, Rule...
Fateh Vs. Har Bilas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All392
Verma, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent for possession over a house by ejectment of the appellant, for a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, over the house, and for future mesne profits. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has reverse that decree and has passed a decree for possession over the house in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant has come up to this Court in second appeal.2. The allegations of the plaintiff were that he was the sole zamindar of mahal 7 1/2 biswas situated in village Gopalpura alias patti Saktara, that one Dhumi, who was a Kachhi by caste, had been occupying a house within the abadi of that village as the plaintiff's ryot, that Dhumi died and his widow lived in the house after him, that the widow also has died and as Dhumi left no issue, the house reverted in law to the zamindar, and that the defendant had taken p...
Kundan Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All187
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Roorkee. This order was passed in the course of proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P.C. An application was made to the Magistrate that the applicants) in the application before me had erected a building and thereby blocked a public right of way. The applicants before me produced certain evidence under the provisions of Section 139-A, Criminal P.C., to prove that no right of way existed. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence was not reliable and consequently expressed his intention of proceeding with the case without leaving any matter to the decision of a competent Civil Court. It has been argued that the Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction. I have no doubt that this argument is correct. The applicants before me produced a deed of sale to show that they had acquired a title in the land upon which they had built. They produced the record of ...
Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All230
Thom, C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court. The decree-holder obtained a decree under Order 34, Rule 6 on 22nd November 1930, against Hira Lal and Narain Prasad, two joint mortgagors. This decree was a simple money decree. The judgment-debtors were under it jointly and severally liable. On 29th July 1932 Narain Prasad, one of the mortgagors, paid a sum of Rs. 618 to the decree-holder. On the same day the decree-holder certified the payment in the execution Court and prayed for an order discharging Narain Prasad as judgment-debtor. The Court acceded to the prayer and Narain Prasad's liability was held discharged. On 29th July 1935, that is within three years of the payment by Narain Prasad, the decree-holder sought to put his decree into execution against Hira Lal. He was met by the plea that the decree which was passed on 22nd November 1930 was time-barred. It was contended for the decree-holder however that a fresh period of...
Lakhmi Chand Vs. Moti Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All165
Verma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit praying for a perpetual injunction to restrain him from constructing a building on a plot of land belonging to him in such a manner as to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff's and other Hindu residents of certain mohallan in the town of Aligarh, of going to this plot of land at a certain time of the year and collecting fuel there and burning Holi and performing certain religious ceremonies. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, who had brought the suit in a representative capacity, granting them an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs and the other Hindu residents of the mohallas in question from keeping Holi on this land on 15th of Phagun sudi each year and burning it at night. It had further ordered the defendant to allow the ashes to cool down on the land, and it, directed that after they had cooled down, they could be removed either on Chait badi 1 or Ch...
B. Mahinder Das Vs. P. Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All187a
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought for the recovery of Rs. 387 or such amount as may be found duo to the plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1, Pt. Mohan Lal, is admittedly the owner of the houses in question in Mussoorie. The plaintiff 2, Bhagwan Dass & Co. Ltd., were appointed agents by plaintiff 1 to lease the houses in the year 1933. The plaintiffs' case is that plaintiff 2 appointed the defendants as agents on behalf of plaintiff 1 to rent the houses and agreed to pay them commission at the rate of 21/2 per cent, on the amount of rent realized, that the defendants rented the three houses placed under their agency for a total sum of Rs. 2550,. that out of the said amount Rs. 2145-10-0 was paid to plaintiff 1 but the balance, Rs. 269-6-0, was still due, that apart from the above mentioned sum the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 17-10-0 which sum the plaintiffs were entitled to by way of remission in respect of the house tax of 'Fenloe' from the City Board but ...
Faiyaz HusaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All280
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that the plaintiffs, and other Shia Mahomedans of Amroha have a right to take out in procession during the Ashrae Moharram, i.e. on 10th Moharram, tazias 'which are up to 27 feet in height' in the public streets of Amroha by certain fixed routes and for a perpetual injunction ordering the defendants to raise the electric wires to such a height as not to cause interference or obstruction in the exercise of that right. The facts that led to the suit are as follows:2. In the year 1929 the Local Government, in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 3, Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910), granted to Martin & Co., defendant 3, a license for the supply of electric energy -within the districts of Bijnor and Moradabad. The area within which the supply of electric energy by the licensee was to be compulsory was specified in the license, and the licensee was inter alia bound to lay down d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »