Allahabad Court May 1941 Judgments
Chhajju and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All336
ORDERHamilton, J.1. This is an application in ravision against an order of an Additional Sessions Judge which upheld the decision of a Magistrate acting in the exercise of his appellate powers. There was a criminal case filed and decided and an appeal was filed by the persons convicted. In the appellate Court no vakalatnama was filed by the pleader with the memorandum of appeal. The Magistrate accordingly held that the appeal was not filed by a person entitled to present it and therefore dismissed it without inquiring into the merits. It has been urged before me that it is not necessary that, for each Court, there should be a new vakalatnama and a vakalatnama filed in the trial Court will hold good in the appellate Court, provided in the body of it it is so stated, as is the case with this vakalatnama. The relevant rule is to be found in Clause 2, Rule 1, General Rules (criminal), and is as follows:2. A pleader or mukhtar is entitled to practise only after enrolment as required by Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Subh Karan Singh and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All314
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants. The suit was for recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a simple mortgage deed dated 5th February 1922. The suit was against the mortgagors and their descendants and certain subsequent transferees. The appeal before us is only by the mortgagors or their descendants. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below and hence this appeal before us. Several points were taken in defence and with some of them we are not concerned. In view of the findings of the Courts below and in view of certain concessions made by learned Counsel for the appellants before us, it is not necessary to find out whether the hypothecation bond was duly executed or not and whether the hypothecation bond was with consideration or not. There was some controversy about the grant of instalments in the Courts below, namely whether the defendants were entitled to four years' instalments or to 15 years' instalments, but that point is also not In dispute before ...
Tag this Judgment!Meer Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All321
Allsop, J.1. This is an application by Meer Singh, who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to a fine of Rupees 100 under Rule 38(1)(a) read with Rule 34(6)(j), Defence of India Act. The facts found are that one Earn Narain went to the applicant's shop on 17th June 1940 and bought some flour and gram for five annas and three pies ; he presented a currency note for Rs. 10 and asked for change; the applicant refused to accept the note. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has believed the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution. They say that the applicant made some excuses, but eventually said that he would not accept a currency note. One of them has said that the accused stated that currency notes were no longer legal tender and that Government themselves refused to accept them in their treasuries. The trial Court was of the same opinion as the Judge. Both Courts have found that by refusing to take the currency note in the circums...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Lal Vs. Reoti Prasad Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All327
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26th November 1938, of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh by which he affirmed a judgment and decree dated 20th May 1938, of the Additional Munsif of Aligarh in a suit for damages for loss caused to a building by fire. The plaintiff, Deputy Lal , is the owner of a house in the city of Aligarh which, prior to the suit, for about eight years had been leased to the defendant Reoti Prasad Gupta and was in occupation of the defendant. The house is double-storeyed. In the ground floor the defendant carried on his business which is of manufacturing locks and the first floor is used for residential purposes. In the first floor there are three rooms on the southern side which in the plan exhibited in the case have been marked X, T, Z. The room marked Y is the central room and the room marked Z is at one end on the sourthern-eastern corner and the room marked X is at the other end on the southwestern corner. In the night of ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mendi Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All310
ORDERBraund, J.1. This revision is the outcome of a comment made by me on reading a judgment in the form of a Sessions statement. The facts of the case are that a young man Mendi Ali, was charged with murdering his wife, Mt. Sughra, on 17th November 1939. I have read the evidence and see no reason to disagree with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. I can, therefore, take the facts from the judgment itself. The learned Judge has found that the accused man did in fact kill Mt. Sughra, his wife, by beating her in what he described as a savage and brutal way about the head and body with a lathi. In all she had not less than 33 injuries of which four were grievous. Had that been all, there would, of course, have been no doubt but that it was a case of murder. But the learned Judge, on a careful examination of the evidence, went on to find that the accused killed the woman under the influence of grave and sudden provocation and while wholly deprived by that provoc...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Shakir and ors. Vs. Kalka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All352
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21st May 1938 of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut by which he partly affirmed and partly varied the judgment and decree dated 4th February 1938 of the Third Additional Munsif of Meerut. The plaintiff has made the appeal and the defendant has filed cross-objections. In qasba Meerut there is a khewat No. 197, area 26 bighas 12 biswas. In this khewat is included a plot No. 5142 measuring one bigha four biswas. In or about the year 1930 Kalka Prasad, the defendant, purchased 1 bigha 13 biswas land in this joint khewat and another person named Sheo Prasad in the year 1932 purchased 17 biswas seven bis-wansis share in this joint khewat. By sub-sequent arrangement this 17 biswas seven biswansis share of Sheo Prasad is also now vested in Kalka Prasad. The remaining share in the khewat is vested in the plaintiffs Mohammad Shakir and others. It will thus be seen that Mohammad Shakir and others hold by far the largest interest in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›