Allahabad Court September 1947 Judgments
Nirpat Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All167
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicant Nirpat Singh was the supardar with respect to some sugarcane crop belonging to a judgment - debtor which had been attached by the Amin on an application made by the decree-holder for the execution of his decree. The supratdar was subsequently unable to produce the crop and it is said that it had been cut, pressed and turned into gur and had been made over to the decree-holder himself. This suggestion was found to be false by the Courts below and the applicant was convicted accordingly under Section 424, Penal Code, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.2. It is, however, argued on behalf of the applicant that the attachment itself was illegal inasmuch as the warrant of attachment was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 24, Civil P.C., which require, among other things, that every such process shall be sealed with the seal of the Court. It appears that the warrant of attachment in t...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Mohan Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All177
ORDERMootham, J.1. These are applications in revision, in which a common question of law arises, by persons who have been convicted tinder Section 4, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1912.1a. In Criminal Revision No. 177 the relevant facts as found by the learned Magistrate can be stated shortly. Brij Mohan Das is the proprietor of a shop known as the Producing Company, Benares, and Jagan Nath Prasad is an employee who was in charge of the shop on 18-2-1946. On that date the Sanitary Inspector of the Benares Municipality visited the shop in company with the Health Officer and purchased a sample of mustard oil which was offered for sale in the shop. The learned Magistrate has found as a fact that the substance sold to the Sanitary Inspector was sold under the description of pure mustard oil. The sample taken by the Sanitary Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst appears to be no longer on the record, but it is not in dispute that he found that the...
Tag this Judgment!Hanwant Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All185
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicant, Hanwant has been bound over under Section 110, Criminal P.C., and required to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 200 with two sureties each in like amounts to be of good behaviour for a period of one year on the ground that he is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.2. Fifty-two witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and 55 on behalf of the defence. The Courts below have accepted the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and have not relied upon the defence evidence, one of the grounds being that only one out of the 55 witnesses produced on behalf of the defence lives in Kuberpur. I am not prepared to go into the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. There is, however, an important question of law raised on behalf of the applicant in this application.3. The applicant is no doubt a resident of village Kuberpur, police circle Kundaria, Tahsil Jalalabad,...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sewak Lal Vs. Bashist and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All419
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order passed by the lower appellate Court by which the decree passed by the Court of first instance was set aside and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit in the civil Court and sought a declaration that a consent decree, dated 15th September 1942, in Suit No. 407 of the revenue Court was void and ineffectual against him. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the occupancy tenant of the plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint and that he was in possession of the same. The plaint went on to allege that defendants 1 to 3, namely, Bashist Pandey, Rikhi and Singhasan Pandey, in collusion with defendant 4, Balram Das, filed a suit in the revenue Court under S3. 59 and 61, U.P. Tenancy Act and in the course of hearing of that suit a fraud was practised upon the plaintiff and he was made to give an admission of the claim put up by the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Angan Chaube Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All191
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the possession of certain-trees situated on plots Nos. 1028, 1030 and 1040 in village Gopipur in the district of Jaunpur and for the recovery of Rs. 200 as damages on account of the defendants having taken the timber, the flowers and the fruits of certain trees.2. The trial Court dismissed the claim. In appeal the learned Civil Judge decreed the claim for possession but dismissed that for damages on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence that the defendants had cut the trees and taken away the fruits and flowers.3. Two points have been urged on behalf of the defendants. Firstly, it is contended that, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 81, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the suit was not - cognizable by the civil Court. Section 81, U.P. Tenancy Act, provides as follows:81.(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any custom or contract to the contrary, scattered trees situated...
Tag this Judgment!Deep Chand and ors. Vs. Mania and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All194
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This judgment will govern Second Appeals Nos. 715 and 935 of 1945 also. A common question arises in all these appeals and that question is whether any one has a right to pre-empt a sale of land made by a Collector under the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act.2. Both the Courts below answered the above question in the negative. The plaintiffs come in appeal.3. Section 6, Agra Pre-emption Act, provides inter alia that no right of pre-emption shall arise in respect of any sale in execution of the decree of a civil or revenue Court. The question for determination, therefore, is whether the sale made by the Collector under Clauses 5, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, can be regarded as a sale in execution of a decree of a civil Court. I have no doubt in my mind that, on a consideration of the scheme of the Act, the sale should be regarded as such. The Collector entertains the application under Section 4. He then sends it to the Special Judge who passes simple money ...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All289
Harish Chandra, J.1. The appellants are Moti Singh (50), Dal Singh (62), Nanku Singh (42), Kheoraj Singh (40) and Hukmi Singh (38), residents of village Damkoda in police circle Data, ganj in the District of Budaun. Moti Singh and Dal Singh have been convicted under Section 147 and Sections 323 and 304 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, one year's rigorous imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively for the three offences. The other three appellants have been convicted under Section 148 and Sections 323 and 304 read with Section 149, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years', one year's and five years' rigorous imprisonment respectively for the three offences. Moti Singh and Kheoraj Singh are brothers. Dal Singh and Nanku Singh are also brothers and are cousins of the other two. All the appellants belong to the game family and the last appellant Hakim Singh is a cousin of the other four appellants.2. The prosecution ...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All278
Sankar Saran, J.1. This application in revision has been filed by Munshi Lal who was convicted of an offence under Section 13 read with Sections 9(2)(a) and 17 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 35 of 1943. The learned Magistrate who convicted him passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 1000. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of fine from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 750 only. With this modification he dismissed the appeal. This application came up before a Single Judge of this Court who passed the following order:The sole question in this application is whether the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance of 1943 is ultra vires the Governor-General, let this application be laid before a Bench.2. In this Court, however, the arguments were not confined only to the point which was pressed before the learned Single Judge but certain other points were also raised to which we shall presently refer.3. The facts of this case are simple. ...
Tag this Judgment!Man Alias Udit Narayan and ors. Vs. Lalita Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All187
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment brought in the revenue Court. The facts are these : Plot No. 467 was divided into six plots, all placed in different mahals, under different zamindars. Plots Nos. 467/3, 467/4, and 467/6 constituted a grove and were recorded as such. The case of the plaintiffs was that these plots lost their character as groves and they were entitled to eject the defendants.2. The defence was that the defendants were grove-holders. Proprietary rights were also claimed.3. The issue of proprietary title was referred by the Revenue Officer to the civil Court, which returned a finding adverse to the defendant. It however found that the defendants were hereditary tenants within the meaning of Section 206, U.P. Tenancy Act, (17[xvii] of 1939).4. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge held otherwise, but agreed with the finding of the Revenue Officer that the defendants did not possess proprietary title. He however, disagreed with him...
Tag this Judgment!Chotey and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All168
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. The applicants, Shiv Shankar and Chhotey Lal, have been convicted under Section 324 and Section 324 read with Section 109, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' and one year's rigorous imprisonment respectively for the two offences.2. The applicants as well as the complainant Rachhpal Singh are residents of Jasrana town in the district of Mainpuri. According to the prosecution the complainant had illicit connexion with the wife of one Mathura Prasad, who was also tried along with the applicants but was acquitted. The applicant Shiv Shankar was in the service of Mathura Prasad, and the other applicant Chhotey Lal is his (Shiv Shankar's) younger brother. Mathura Prasad had engaged Shiv Shankar in order to preventthe complainant from visiting his house, but Shiv Shankar also contracted intimacy with the wife of Mathura, Prasad and a sort of rivalry sprang up between the applicant Shiv Shankar and the complainant. On 18-11-1945, at about 5-30 in the evening the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »