Skip to content

Allahabad Court December 1945 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.

Dec 07 1945

Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. Dwarka Nath and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-07-1945

Reported in: AIR1946All497

Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful decree-holder against whom an application by one of the judgment-debtors, under Section 8, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, (Local Act 13 [XIII] of 1940), for amendment of decree No. 22 of 1922, passed on 11th January 1924, by the Subordinate Judge of Benares, under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., was granted. The facts are briefly these : The following pedigree will be useful: GOBIND PRASAD | _______________________________________ | | Durga Prasad Makund Lal | _____________________________________ | | | Gorakh Nath Ramji Bhagwanji | __________________________________________ | | | | Badri Kedar Baijnath Dwarkanath Nath Nath alias alias Bachcha Kalapnath2. The learned Additional Civil Judge has described Dwarka Nath alias Bachcha. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this is a mistake and that Bachcha is the alias of Kedar Nath. It is common ground that the members of the above family are still joint. On 25th January 1912, Makund ...


Dec 05 1945

Bal Kishan Vs. Saliq Ram

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Dec-05-1945

Reported in: AIR1946All476

Malik, J.1. The parties are Choubes of Muttra. They are the sons of one Ram Raj Chaube, who is dead. They carry on a business which is known as Brit Jijmani. It consists of looking after pilgrims who come to Muttra and taking them to the various temples and sometimes helping them in their pujas or religious worship. The pilgrims pay for this service according to their capacity to pay and the capacity of the Panda to extract money from them. When a pilgrim goes to Muttra, he is claimed by the Panda on the ground that he or his ancestors had attended on the pilgrim or his ancestors on their previous visit or visits to Muttra. Generally, the pilgrim decides to engage the services of the same Panda who had attended on him or his ancestors or that Panda's descendants. If, however, the pilgrim decides to go to a different Panda or not to have a Panda at all, his right to do so cannot be fettered nor has a Panda a legal right to force himself on an unwilling pilgrim. Who does not require his ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial