Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-15-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All579
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal revision on behalf of one Sahdeo Ram, who has been convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 377, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, 12 stripes and a fine of Rs. 100 or in default four months' further rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Sessions Judge and his appeal was dismissed. This revision is filed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge. The facts found by the Sessions Court were that a small boy Modan aged six and a half years was playing with another boy at the house of the accused and that the accused took him into a room and committed the offence of sodomy on him and the boy Modan was seen by two witnesses to> run out of the house of the accused weeping, and the boy went to his father and told his father his story and took his father with a constable to the house of the accused and the boy pointed out the house and a head constable was called and the boy pointed out the accused and the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-27-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All706; 157Ind.Cas.157
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption of a sale deed dated 9th November 1928. The suit was filed on the 8th of November 1929. On the 6th of February 1930, the defendants-vendees obtained a deed of gift in their favour which the present plaintiff also sought to preempt by a second suit. It has now been finally held that it was a transaction of gift and was not perceptible. On 20th December 1930, the Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for preemption, holding that the second transaction was a sale and not a gift. But on 14th December 1931 the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the second transaction was one of gift and accordingly dismissed not only the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt the second transaction but also his claim to preempt the first sale deed. The finding that the second transaction was a gift has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.2. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-17-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All817
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer to me as Taxing judge under Section 5 Court-fees Act. The reference embraces two matters : firstly, whether the court-fee paid on the memorandum of S.A. No. 51 of 1933 by the plaintiff-appellant is sufficient, and secondly, whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiff in the trial Court and in the lower appellate Court is sufficient. Learned Counsel has argued that on the strength of a ruling of a Bench of this Court, of which I was a member in Mitthu Lal v. Chameli : AIR1934All805 , the jurisdiction in regard to the alleged insufficiency of the court-fees in the lower Court lies with a Bench under Section 12(2), Court-fees Act. I accept that view. The jurisdiction of the Taxing Officer to make a reference under Section 5 Court-fees Act, is in regard to the payment of the court-fee in the High Court. This section shows that the question relates only to this Court as the section uses the words 'any fee under this chapter.' Chapt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-25-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All862
Sulaiman, C.J.1. I concur in the order proposed. No doubt there are several classes of pensions and those falling under Section 7 are not subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 6, Pensions Act, (Act 23) of 1871. It is also true that the burden is on the defendants to show that the pension in dispute in this case was of the class mentioned in Sections 11 and 12. But inasmuch as it has been assumed throughout in all the Courts that this was a political pension of the nature to which Section 12 would be applicable, I would prefer not to base my decision on the ground that this has not been established by the defendants.2. In the same way I have considerable difficulty in holding that even if the withdrawal of the claim to the political pension in the former suit was in fact an invalid and void offer, the counter promise is enforceable. So far as the Indian Contract Act, is concerned, all considerations and objects of an agreement are unlawful which are of such a nature that if permit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-25-1935
Reported in : AIR1935All935
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal on behalf of two persons and their cases have been argued separately. The trial was by a jury; so although learned Counsel have each, entered in their grounds of appeal that the conviction was against the weight of evidence on, the record that is not a ground which can be considered by this Court. In addition to this argument it has been alleged that there was misdirection of the jury. In this file Laltu Singh has been convicted under Section 376, Penal Code, of rape of a young girl called Victoria Lazarus and Samuel John has been convicted of abetment of that rape. There was a third accused Daniel David who has been acquitted. The first argument in regard to misdirection is based on a portion of the charge to the jury on p. 88 as follows:If you do not believe Victoria's statement, made in Court, that the accused Samuel John and Daniel David also had raped her, but, if you believe her statement, made to the police, Ex. R referred to above, you are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-02-1935
Reported in : AIR1936All160
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit on a promissory note, dated 22nd June 1929 for Rs. 900 which contained no mention of any liability to pay interest. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the promissory note had been executed in respect of Mine old debt and after borrowing money in cash. In his defence the defendant pleaded that he had received only Rupees 200 out of the amount of the promissory note and did not get the balance. He also denied his liability to pay interest, which the plaintiff had alleged had been agreed upon orally to be at 1 per cent per mensem. The plaintiff replied that although only Rs. 200 had been paid in cash, the balance of Rs. 700 consisted of a sum of Rs. 500 due on a previous promissory note of 15th April 1926 and Rs. 200 interest due thereon at 1 per cent per mensem as well as Rs. 20 on a parole debt. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for Rs. 900 together with past and future interest at six per cent per ann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-26-1935
Reported in : AIR1936All239
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff Seth Kashi Nath who was said to be of weak intellect brought a. suit with his mother Mb. Asharfi Kunwar as next friend for a declaration that the property mentioned at the foot of the plaint was owned by the defendants second party and was liable to be attached and sold in satisfaction of the plaintiffs' decree passed in Suit No. 42 of 1930 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh (Seth Kashi Nath v. Roshan Lal and others).2. He impleaded as defendants to the suit Govind Ram and six others who were described as defendants first party and the firm of Phool Chand Roshan Lal situate at Hathras with its various partners who were described as defendants second party. The allegations contained in the plaint were that the firm of Phool Chand roshan Lal was about to become bankrupt in the month of April 1929 and that the partners thereof, with a dishonest intention approached the plaintiff's guardian who was a purdanashin ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-05-1935
Reported in : AIR1936All102; 160Ind.Cas.991
Bajpai, J.1. This appeal is connected with Revision No. 156 of 1934 and the same question of law is raised in both proceedings. It appears that one Hakim Saiyid Ali Ahmad was adjudged an insolvent in 1910. In the year 1930 he applied under Section 35 for annulment of adjudication, but his application was dismissed and the dismissal order was maintained up-till the High Court. In those proceedings the insolvent made an attempt to obtain a reduction in the contractual rate of interest on his debts and it was held by the learned District Judge that:An application under Section 35 is something quite different; the Court is not functioning as a distributor of assets at all. It is therefore no part of the Court's duty to start calculating what rate of interest ought to be paid to each creditor. Before the debtor can ask the Court to annul the order of adjudication he has to prove to the Court that he has paid up his total debts in full including all the interest up to the date of payment tha...
Tag this Judgment!