Allahabad Court September 1942 Judgments
B. Ugar Sen JaIn and anr. Vs. L. Tirbhwan NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All82
Hamilton, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against a decision of the Additional Civil Judge of Bulandshahr. The plaintiffs who occupied a house in Khurja brought a suit against the defendants alleging that they, the plaintiffs, in a wall of their house had three barred openings (janglas) which had been in existence for a long time so that there was a right of easement of light and air but the defendants had now erected a wall so as to prevent the air and light reaching those janglas. The defendants in the written statement alleged that they were lessees, the lessor being the Crown, so that the plaintiffs in order to have an easement as regards their janglas had to establish peaceable enjoyment without interruption for 60 years and not 20. The statement of the counsel for the plaintiffs was then taken and he said that the enjoyment had continued for more than 60 years. It was the plaintiffs who claimed the right of easement and therefore they had to establish that under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Sibte Rasul Vs. M. Sibte Nabi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All74
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted, in the first instance, by three plaintiffs, Sibte Nabi, Abdul Bab and Nisar Ali, against Sibte Rasul who is admittedly the mutwalli of a waqf created in or about the year 1760 by Mir Asad Ullah otherwise known as Mir Kallu, a Sunni Muslim. Mir Asad Ullah had built a mosque and a school in the town of Amroha and it is admitted that he dedicated the village of Jhiran with the intention of ensuring the upkeep of these buildings or institutions. The parties agree that he himself was the first mutwalli and that the mutwallis succeeding him were, in order, Saadat Ullah, Nijabat Ullah, Siyadat Ullah and Sibte Rasul. Each mutwalli was the son of his predecessor. Either Nijabat Ullah, as asserted by the defendant, or Siyadat Ullah, as asserted by the plaintiffs, became a Shia and Sibte Rasul is a Shia too.2. The plaintiffs claimed the reliefs that the Court should declare that the mosque and school were founded solely for the b...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Hari Kirti Saran Vs. Mt. Bhagirathi Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All161
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Civil Judge of Moradabad, rejecting an application for the setting aside of an alleged ex parte decree and for the restoration of a suit to its original number. The facts are a bit curious and are as follows: A suit for the setting aside of a decree in a previous civil suit was filed by Raghunandan Saran, father of Hari Kirti Saran appellant, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Moradabad in 1935. The decree sought to be set aside was passed in a suit that was decided by the trial Court in the year 1917. Dharam Kirti Saran, father of Raghunandan Saran, was a party to that suit. The suit filed by Raghunandan Saran in the year 1935 was based mainly on the allegation that the decree in the suit of 1917 was obtained by Dharam Kirti Saran by the exercise of fraud. Raghunandan Saran's suit was pending in Court from November 1935 to 21st January 1938. On the last mentioned date the counsel for Raghunandan Saran stated that he h...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam and anr. Vs. Ram Dhan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All68
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the first four defendants against a decree for possession of the lands claimed and for certain mesne profits passed by the civil Judge of Bareilly on 30th September 1936. The dispute which gave rise to this litigation was brought into existence by the vagaries of a river called the Bam Ganga. The suit was instituted by one Babu Ram who was the zamindar and lambardar of a mauza called Sikha. Some time after instituting the suit Babu Ram died and his two sons, Ram Dhan Lal and Banwari Lal, were substituted for him as his legal representatives, and they are the principal respondents to this appeal.2. There were numerous defendants. On the record as it stood at the date of the decree of the Court below defendants 1 to 25 were persons who owned various shares in a neighbouring village called Jhawa Nagla, and defendants 26 to 41 were cosharers of another neighbouring village called Gurgan-wan. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants had interfered with h...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal Vs. Ram Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All9
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Agra. He has recommended to this Court to set aside an order of acquittal passed by a Subordinate Magistrate and to direct a fresh trial. The Subordinate Magistrate after framing a charge acquitted the accused because the complainant and his witnesses did not appear for cross-examination. The trial Magistrate was obviously wrong and the reason why he made a mistake was that he did not realise the basic principle underlying criminal trials. He seems to have thought that it was his business to decide a private dispute between the complainant and the accused and that he was entitled to acquit the accused of a non-compoundable and cognizable offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408, Penal Code, merely because the complainant did not appear to prosecute the charge. The Magistrate should realize that the burden is upon him in the trial of warrant cases to discover from the complainant or other...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Chhabia Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All7
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Allahabad. He recommends that this Court should set aside an order passed under Section 522, Criminal P. C., by a Bench of Magistrates. He gives three grounds, namely, (1) that the order is signed by only one Magistrate and that there is nothing to show whether any other Magistrate was present at the time when the order was passed, (2) that the order was passed without notice to the person who was dispossessed, and (3) that no order could be passed under Section 522, Criminal P. C., because the offence of which the person against whom the order was passed had been convicted did not involve the use of criminal force or intimidation. There can be no doubt that the order of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates was eminently just and reasonable. The person against whom it was passed had been ejected by a civil Court Amin from a house and her furniture and belongings had been taken by the Amin out of the hou...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Lal Vs. Emperor Through Mukat Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All14
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Alighar recommending that this Court should direct a Magistrate to stay the proceedings in a criminal case. The complaint was filed in December 1941 and the Magistrate did stay proceedings for some time because he was told that there was a civil suit connected with the same affair which had been instituted on 12th July 1941 and which was still pending. After waiting for a considerable time, the Magistrate decided that he could wait no longer and directed that the criminal case should proceed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considers that he was wrong. In my judgment there is no sufficient reason for staying the criminal proceedings any further. The civil suit was instituted by the present accused in order to recover a sum of Rs. 126. He alleged that the complainant had deposited an ornament with him in order to secure the payment of a debt and that in spite of four notices to the complainant that t...
Tag this Judgment!Barkat and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All6
ORDER1. This is a reference by the learned Judge of Saharanpur. It appears that the accused persons interfered with a civil Court Amin who was attempting to make an attachment. They were prosecuted by the police under Sections 353, 429 and 504, Penal Code, as a result of a report made by the Amin to the police. The Magistrate held that these offences had not been established, but, on the other hand, held that the accused had been guilty of obstructing the Amin in the execution of his duty and were punishable under Section 186, Penal Code. The learned Judge is of opinion that the conviction under that section and the sentence of fine of Rs. 50 must be set aside because the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence except on the complaint in writing of the Amin or of some public servant to whom he was subordinate under the provisions of Section 195(1), Criminal P. C. This is a pure matter of technicality, and in my judgment there is no reason for interference.2. In the first pl...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. L. Hilt Vs. V. Hilt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All8
ORDERCollister, J.1. In 1934 the applicant was directed by this Court to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35 per mensem for his minor daughter Charlotte Hilt. He has apparently been paying this sum regularly upto date ; but he now applies for an order permitting him to stop such payment for the reason that his daughter is no longer a 'minor child' within the meaning of Section 44, Divorce Act. There is also a prayer in the application that such money as has been deposited by him in Court and is still unpaid be refunded to the applicant; but his learned Counsel, does not press this prayer. The opposite party, Charlotte Hilt, has put in an affidavit in which she admits that she reached the age of majority--by which she means the age of 18--on 22nd February of this year and she also admits that 'strictly speaking' she is not legally entitled to any further maintenance after 13th August 1942, on which date this application was preferred by her father. But she says that she is undergoing ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Alias Langar Through Bhairon Vs. Murli Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All19
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares has been made under a misapprehension of the nature of proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P. C. Those proceedings are not intended to settle private dispute between two members of the public. They are not originated by the filing of complaint or something of that kind. Any person naturally can give a Magistrate information of the existence of any state of affairs, but when the Magistrate acts on that information, he is acting suo motu. The person who gives the information has no rights in the matter and is not a person who may be described as a party to the proceedings. If the Magistrate issues a preliminary order under Section 133 for the removal of an obstruction or something of that kind, the question which arises is one between the Magistrate on the one side on behalf of the public at large and the person, on the other, to whom notice has been issued. The person to whom notice has been issued may allege ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »