Allahabad Court September 1947 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.
Kunwarpal Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All170
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Kunwarpal Singh, Thakur, resident of Nagla Biri, and Baji Lal, Ahir, resident of Khatoamai, appeal against their conviction and sentence of death under Section 302, Penal Code. The usual reference for the confirmation of the death sentence is also before us.2. One Bhopal was also tried along with the appellants. He was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Two other persons, namely Kishanpal Singh, Thakur of Nagla Biri and Ram Singh, Thakur of Agra district are also alleged to have taken part in this incident. They were absconding when the first three persona were challaned. It appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that Ram Singh had been subsequently arrested and was committed for trial to the Sessions Court shortly before the commencement of the trial against the appellants. He was not tried jointly with the appellants as his counsel thought have not possible to secure the attendance of defence witnesses. We understand that Ram Singh has agai...
Dora Ina Eates Vs. Eric Nevel Eates
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All421
ORDERMootham, J.1. This is a wife's petition under the Divorce Act for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground of her husband's adultery and desertion.2. I am satisfied that the parties are domiciled in India, and that the petitioner professes the Christian religion. The petitioner and her husband last resided together in Dhanbad in Bengal, and the preliminary question which arises in this case is whether the fact-and I find it to be so-that both the petitioner and the respondent reside in Allahabad, but not together, is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction to hear this petition. There is no reported decision of this Court on the point, but my attention has been drawn to the case in (Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1937) (loaded by Harries J., as he then was, in the year 1937. In that suit, which was undefended, the parties had last lived together in Calcutta but at the time of filing the petition both were living in Allahabad. The learned Judge, without stating his reasons, held...
Chail Behari Lal Vs. Muncipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All189
Sinha, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 110, Civil P.C. The facts, as stated by the learned counsel, for the applicant, which have not been controverted, are briefly these.2. In 1931, the Municipal Board of Agra decided upon a scheme for the improvement of a part of the town of Agra, Mohalla Sabzi Mandi, and, in furtherance of the scheme, granted licenses to the people who owned houses or land in the Mohalla. They were to raise constructions according to the plan approved and sanctioned by the Board. One of the persons, who were granted a license was Lala Munna Lal.3. On 17th January 1931, the Board permitted Munna Lal to make certain constructions abutting the road. They were, mostly, in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Board, but part, of the constructions did not strictly tally with it.4. On 19th August 1937, when the buildings were complete, the Executive Officer submitted a report and indicated the particulars, in wh...
Chhatradhari Ahir and ors. Vs. Uttam Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All303
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal, by the defendants against an order of the learned Additional Civil Judge in appeal by which he remanded the case to the Court of first instance for fresh hearing and decision according to law and according to the directions given by him.2. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale deed dated 26th July 1913, for a share in village Nasirpur. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that there was no custom of pre-emption in the village in question. The Court of first instance took up this issue, which was issue 10 in the suit, as the first issue in the case. In proof of the existence of a custom of pre-emption the plaintiff relied on a document characterised as 'kafiyat-hal' (EX. 1), which appears to have been prepared during the settlement operations in the year 1860 A.D. On behalf of the defendants, however, reliance was placed on the ent...
U.P. Goverment Vs. Redhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1947
Reported in: AIR1947All179
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This judgment will govern First Appeals Nos. 10 and 288 of 1945. Both the appeals have been filed by the Provincial Government against Lala Radhey Lal who was a member of the City Board, Mussorie, from the year 1929. By the order, dated 8-2-1941, the Provincial Government acting under Sub-section (3) of Section 40, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (2[ii] of 1916) removed him from the membership of the Board. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff respondent in the plaint were : (a) A declaration that his removal from the membership of the City Board, Mussorie, was illegal, misconceived and inoperative and that the plaintiff was not subject to the disability of non-eligibility for election in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the said Act; (b) an award of a sum of rupee one as damages; (c) any other relief which under the circumstances the Court deemed the plaintiff to be entitled.2. The learned Civil Judge held that on a true construc...
District Board Vs. Kailashi Nath Kapoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All199
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. It arises out of Suit No. 10 of 1941 instituted by one Kailashi Nath Kapoor, since deceased, who was the Secretary and Assessing Officer of the District Board, Shahjahanpur, for a number of years.2. It appears that on 29th January 1940 the District Board of Shahjahanpur, which is the defendant appellant before us, passed two special, resolutions, one of dismissal of the Secretary and the other of suspension of the Secretary forthwith until the dispossal of the appeal by the Secretary to the Provincial Government against the resolution of dimissal. It may be added here in passing that the Secretary's appeal to the Provincial Government was dismissed by his Excellency the Governor on 19th December 1940. In consequence of the resolutions passed by the District Board mentioned above, on 16th August 1940, Kailashi Nath Kapoor instituted Suit No. 10 of 1941 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur claiming, various reliefs. In substan...
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Mohan Lal Singhania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All359
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Gorakhpur, in which he claimed the following reliefs: (a) that a decree for the dissolution of the partnership business of the United Talkies, Mohalla Purdilpore, Golghar, Gorakhpur, be granted and accounts of the said partnership business be passed against the defendants who may be ordered to render the said accounts, (b) that any other relief to which the plaintiff may be considered to be entitled may also be given to the plaintiff, (c) the plaintiff be awarded costs of the suit. The lower Court has held that the present value of the assets of this partnership is about Rs. 50,000. It has further held that the account books show that the liabilities of the firm are to the extent of about Rs. 56,000. It may be noted here that most of these debts were challenged by the defendants.2. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 500. The defendant con...
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Anjuman Islamia Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1949All348
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a petition in revision under Section 6B, Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended in its application to this Province. The plaintiff brought a suit alleging that the defendant was the tenant of six shops in the town of Bareilly and that he was in arrears of rent for six years. The reliefs-claimed by him were as follows:(a) A decree for Rs. 1010-4-6 for arrears of rent may be awarded.(b) A decree for the ejectment of the defendant from the disputed shops and for possession of the plaintiff over the same may be passed.(c) Pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 28 per shop may be granted.2. Inter alia, the defendant contended that (the court-fee paid was insufficient. The Inspector of Stamps also objected that the court-fee paid was insufficient. His contention was that the two reliefs for arrears of rent and for ejectment should have been separately valued and the court-fees should have been separately paid in respect of them. Reliance was ...
Sheo Ram and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All162
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. The question of law referred to us for decision is whether the non framing of a charge under Section 34, Penal Code, is a bar to the conviction of a person for an offence by invoking the aid of Section 34, Penal Code, or not?2. In actual practice the question arises in various ways, and they depend on the original charge framed against an accused in a particular case. Accused may be charged with a particular offence without any mention in the charge that they had acted in furtherance of a common intention or without any reference to Section 34, Penal Code, and be sought to be convicted of that offence read with Section 34, Penal Code. Accused may be charged with an offence read with Section 149, Penal Code, and ultimately conviction may be sought with respect to that offence read with Section 34, Penal Code. Two other types of cases; which can arise, but which do not really come-within the purview of the question referred to us, can be whether accused charged with ...
Ram Saiya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All205
Sankar Saran, J.1. Five persons Gobind, Ram Singh alias Ram Saiya, Buddhi, Maika and Chhutta appeal against their convictions under Section 302. I.P.C. Gobind was sentenced to death and Ram Saiya to transportation for life. Others were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment The learned Sessions Judge has made the usual reference to this Court for the confirmation of sentence on Gobind.2. The prosecution case very briefly is set out in the first information report which was made by one of the witnesses for the prosecution Makrand Singh who happens to be the younger brother of the deceased Dwarka Singh. The incident took place on 6th October 1946, at about noon time. The first information report was made at police station Kant at 5 P.M. The distance from the scene of occurrence in village Sarthauli to the police station is 7 miles. The first report pets out the case that has been given out in Court by the witnesses for the prosecution and it would be convenient to refer to the firs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »