Allahabad Court October 1948 Judgments
Ram Kirpal Misir Vs. Bhagwati Saran Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All318
ORDERBhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 116, Civil P.C. It has been filed by Ram Kirpal Misir, who was defendant 2 in a proceeding under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, started by Bhagwati Saran Misir against him and Rameshwar Misir, defendant l, in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Basti, on the basis of a usufructuary mortgage deed, dated 27th May 1902, for Rs. 650. The mortgaged property consisted of six plots of land, situate in village Belsar in the district of Basti.2. The plaintiff Bhagwati Saran Misir claimed to be the legal representative of the mortgagors, and alleged that the entire mortgage money had been paid up out of the usufruct of the mortgaged property. He impleaded Ram Kirpal on the ground that Rameshwar Misir, (the mortgagee) and his own brother, Dwarka Misir, were the members of a joint Hindu family, that after the death of Dwarka, Rameshwar and Ram Kirpal son of Dwarka, continued to form a joint family and they were jo...
Tag this Judgment!J.W. Peters Vs. Ram NaraIn Mehrotra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All537
Kidwai, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree for ejectment. The appellant is admittedly a tenant of a house situated in Lucknow belonging to the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 69 but did not pay rent for a considerable length of time and on 23rd April 1946, the respondent served notice upon him to vacate the house by Slat May 1946 and to pay arrears. The house was not vacated and the arrears were not paid. On 26th April 1946, the respondents filed a suit only for the arrears of rent. This suit was decreed on 17th May 1946 and the appellant was ordered to-pay the decreed arrears in instalments of Rs. 69 per mensem, the last instalment to be paid on 17th December 1946.2. On 1st June 1946, the respondents filed another suit for the appellant's ejectment from the house and obtained a decree on. 24th September 1946. An appeal filed by the appellant from the decree in the ejectment suit was allowed on 8th January 1947, but on second appeal to this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Faiyaz Haider and ors. Vs. L. Radhey Raman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All691
Kidwai, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree for eviction.2. The respondent is the owner of a house in the city of Lucknow which is occupied on rent by the appellants. There was default in payment of rent on 30th August 1944, and an erresrs decree for arrears as well as for ejectment was passed against the appellants. On 30th September. 1944, by reason of a compromise arrived at between the parties, the decree was modified and it was provided that the arrears then due would be paid in four equal monthly instalments and that in future the rent of Rs. 13-2-0 would be paid on the 15th of the following month. It seems that there were further defaults and execution proceedings were taken. One of these execution proceedings was commenced by an application dated 12th September 1946. In these proceedings there was a further compromise on 15th February 1946 (1947?) by which it was agreed that out of the arrears Rs. 100 should be paid by 12th April 1947, and the ba...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Sardesai Vs. the Provincial Government
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All395; 1949CriLJ637
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1.This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C, by one S. G. Sardesai with the prayer that his detention being illegal, he may be set at liberty. The applicant is a member of the Communist Party of India. He is a Maharaahtrian and his permanent residence is in Bombay. On 15th July 1948, he was arrested in Azamgarh without any warrant and without any intimation to him as to under what law he was being arrested. After 13 days' custody, an order was passed by the Provincial Government on 27th July 1948, under Clause (a) of Sub-section U) of Section 3, United Provinces Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act. 1947, directing his detention for six months. The same day a notice under Section 5 of the Act communicating to him the grounds of detention was drawn up and was handed over to the applicant on 31st July 1948. The grounds mentioned in that notice are:You have been inciting kisans against Government and the zamindars. You have also been preachin...
Tag this Judgment!Khurshid Ali Vs. Lachman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All660
Bhargava, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order of remand, dated 22nd January 1946, made by the Additional Civil Judge of Aligarh, getting aside a decree, dated 16th February 1946, passed by the Munsiff of Havali of the same district. The plaintiff-respondent, Thakur Lachhman Singh, had instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal against Khurshed Ali, the defendant-appellant, and his sisters to recover possession over certain landed property, which admittedly belonged to Nasir Ali Khan, father of the appellant. The suit was instituted in the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff held a simple money decree against Nasir Ali Khan. It was granted on 16th September 1924 in Suit No. 203 of 1924. The decree was put in execution and the property in dispute was attached and sold on 21st December 1932. It was purchased by the plaintiff. Nasir Ali Khan died in the meantime and his son Khurshed Ali (defendant 1) and his daughters, Mt. Jafri Begum, Saliman and Masitulni...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmud Hasan Khan and ors. Vs. Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All210
Malik, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench on the ground that the Bench decision in the case of Shiam Sunder Lal v. Data Ram : AIR1946All147 was not fully considered by the Full Bench in the case of Saran Singh v. Miththan Lal : AIR1946All174 .2. Mr. Isbaq Ahmad has appeared on behalf of the appellants and has raised before us a very ingenious argument which was not advanced before the Bench which made the reference.3. One Narain had executed a mortgage on 5tb July 1908, in favour of Mahmud Hasan. Khan and others. The mortgagees filed a suit. for sale and obtained a preliminary decree on 31st March 1922. The final decree was passed on 13th December 1924. In the year 1943 the decree-holders filed an application for execution, and the judgment-debtor, Narain, filed an objection. The first point taken in this objection was that the decree had been paid up, the second point was that the application for execution was barred by limitation and, lastly, it was urged that the decree a...
Tag this Judgment!Dila Ram and ors. Vs. Atma Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All225
1. These five' appeals arise out of certain proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. One Lala Mutsaddi Lal was a member of a joint Hindu family who owned two firms known as Firm Ram Lal Mutsaddi Lal at Saharanpur and Firm Mutsaddi Lal Lachhi Ram at Deoband. Mutsaddi Lal died in the year 1923 leaving two sons, Pooran Lal and Roop Chand, two grandsons, Atma Ram and Madho Ram, by a predeceased son, Lachhi Ram and a widow, Mt. Muthri. After the death of Mutsaddi Lal, the third firm known as Pooran Lal Roop Chand was started in Hapur. We are informed that Roop Chand looked after these firms on behalf of the family. Debts were incurred and on 13th May 1929, Pooran Lal filed a suit for partition. The suit was decreed on 5th March 1934, and the properties were partitioned under the decree. The creditors of the firms, notably Phool Chand Mohan Lal and the Banaras Bank Limited, executed their decrees against; the share of the properties which had come into the hands of Pooran Lal's sons, Po...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. Damodar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All535
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by Ram Kumar and others against the order of the Civil Judge of Bareilly by which the lower Court has asked the plaintiffs- appellants to pay court-fee on the sum of Rs. 30,000. The appellants' contention is twofold. It has first been urged that, in any case, they could only be asked to pay court-fee on one-fifth of Rs. 82,000, that is on Rs. 16,400. It has further been urged that this is a suit for partition and therefore, Section 7 (iv-A), Court-fees Act, does not apply to this case. The suit of the plaintiffs-appellants was against their father for partition of certain joint family properties. Among the properties were included two items which had already been sold by their father to certain persons. These persons were also made parties to the partition suit. It was said in the plaint that these two properties were worth, in all, Rs. 1,50,000, but the father of the plaintiffs, appellants had sold them for Rs. 82,000 only. The plaintiffs-appellants sai...
Tag this Judgment!Khushal Vs. Sheo Shankar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All672
Misra, J.1. The controversy in this appeal relates to the devolution of the property of Mt. Kailasha who died on 10th April 1939, with-out leaving any issues. It must be presumed that she was married to Gajodhar in one of the approved forms of marriage. Her husband predeceased her and the competition now lies between the collaterals of her husband, namely, Sheo Shanker, defendant l, on the one hand and Khushal, plaintiff, and Ram Lal, defendant 2, on the other. Sheo Shankar is admittedly one degree higher than Khushal and Ram Lal but while Khushal and Ram Lal are full blood relations of Gajodhar, Sheo Shankar is only a half blood relation. The plaintiff sued for possession and desired to exclude Sheo Shankar in whose favour the property of Mt. Kailasha was mutated after her death but he failed in the Court of first instance as well as in appeal.2. In second appeal the only point which arises for determination in view of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is whether the r...
Tag this Judgment!Bhondu Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ561
ORDER1. The following questions have been referred to us for decision by a learned single Judge of this Court:1. When does an investigation by the police start la it immediately after the registration of the case by the police or when it starts to ascertain the actual Offence and the culprits thereof ?2. II after the first information report the complainant hands over a list of the stolen property to the Sub-Inspector as soon as he arrives on the spot for Investigation, is such a liet inadmissible In evidenoe under Section 162, Criminal P. C.?2. The facts necessary for a propee decision of the questions involved are these. On the night between 13th and 14th August 1946, a burglary took place at the house of one Mohammad Yusuf in the town of Said pur, diatriot Ghazipur. He discovered it in the morning and sent a slip to the police informing it of the theft. No suapicioa was expressed against any one in the blip; nor was the Hat of property stolen given in it. It was as follows:ToThe Sub...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »