Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-21-1937
Reported in : AIR1937All714
1. Five persons, B.S. Vidyarthi, A.B. Tandon, Gopi Nath Singh, K.B. Tandon and R.B. Govind Prasad, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Agra under Section 120-B on a. charge of having criminally conspired together to make money out of the public by committing offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 477-A, I.P.C. Against certain of the accused, there were also specific charges of cheating, attempting to cheat, forgery, falsification of accounts and criminal misappropriation, the relevant sections being Sections 420, 420/511, 465, 467, 477-A and 409, I.P.C. In all, there were 17 charges. R.B. Govind Prasad and K.B. Tandon have been acquitted by the trial Court on all charges. B.S. Vidyarthi, A.B. Tandon and Gopi Nath Singh have been convicted on charges Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 477-A and have been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. B.S. Vidyarthi has also been convicted on charge No. 12 under Section 409, I.P.C., an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-05-1937
Reported in : AIR1937All731
1. This is an appeal by Kazim Ali Khan and Nisar Ahmad, defendants 1 and 3, against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar on a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Om Prakash and Kailash. Their claim for the recovery of possession over the plaint property and certain mesne profits was allowed. The principal plea taken in defence in the Court below as well as before us was that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. In order to appropriate this plea as well as the other pleas taken by the defendants, it is necessary to state in some detail the anterior history which has given rise to the present suit.2. It appears that one Raghunandan Prasad was the owner of some zamindari property which after his death came into the possession of his sons, Chandra Shekhar and Ghanshyam Das. These two executed three mortgages in the years 1905 and 1906 in favour of the defendants, and the mortgaged property was comprised in several khewats, viz. Nos. 20, 26 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-11-1937
Reported in : AIR1937All610
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 15th October 1925 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were minors at the time of the mortgage deed, a certificated guardian having been appointed for them, and also pleaded that there was no necessity for contracting the debt. In the rejoinder the plaintiffs denied that the defendants were minors and also asserted that the defendants were liable to pay the amount under Section 68, Contract Act. The issues framed by the trial Court related to the minority of the defendants, the object of the debt and its proper attestation and consideration. The trial Court found that the defendants were more than 18 years of age but under 21 years, and that there was no evidence of representation either by the defendants or their father Sital Prasad. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover the amount under Section 68, Contract Ac...
Tag this Judgment!