Allahabad Court October 1948 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.
Subodh Chandra Banerji and ors. Vs. Jwala Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All648
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The Jwala Bank Limited through its local Manager filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,223 on the foot of a mortgage dated 4th January 1936, executed by the defendants. Among the other pleas that were taken in defence was the plea that the defendants were agriculturists and wore entitled to the benefit of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, XXXVII [27] of 1934, and the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, XIII [13] of 1940. The lower Court held that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the Agriculturists' Relief Act or the Debt Redemption Act, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 11,782-8-4, and dismissed the rest of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff has submitted to the decree but the defendants have filed this appeal. It is urged on their behalf that they were agriculturists and were entitled to the benefit of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The mortgage deed in suit dated 4th January 1936, was executed in favour of Mr. Jwal...
Hira Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Pher and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All260
Chandiramani, J.1. This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Kali Charan Agarwal, Civil Judge, Partabgarh.2. The plaintiff respondents Ram Pher and Ram Adhar filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 35, the price of crops, and Rs. 5 interest thereon, against the appellants Hira Lal and Nageshar. It would appear that Hira Lal appellant had obtained a decree from the Small Cause Court against Ram Pher respondent and in execution of that decree the arhar crop of plots Nos. 111/1 and 113/l situated in village Rupapur was attached. Nageshar appellant was appointed supurdar. He furnished a surety bond also. Ram Adhar, plaintiff-respondent, is the own brother of Ram Pher, and he made an objection to the attachment on the ground that the crop belonged jointly to himself and his brother. This objection was allowed and the attachment was withdrawn in respect of the whole crop. In spite of the order of release, the supurdar Nageshar did not return the property to the pl...
Mrs. V.E Argles and ors. Vs. Chhail Behari Srivastava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All286
Malik, C.J.1. The plaintiff claimed that he was a thekadar of the property in suit under a thekanama dated 18th August 1943, executed by the appellants in his favour. The theka was for a period of seven years The plaintiff alleged that the appellants were interfering with his possession and he therefore asked for an injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering with his possession during the continuance of the theka. The case was tiled in the Court of the Revenue Officer. Tehsil Pharenda Section 217, U.P. Tenancy Act, was the section under which the case was filed. The case came up before the Revenue Officer on 10th March 1948, and decreed the same.2. Various points had been raised by the defendants and the learned Revenue Officer had framed ten issues. The defendants had denied the validity of the lease, had alleged that the plaintiff had given up possession in March 1946, and that the suit was barred by estoppel, etc. Against the order dated 10th March 1948, granting an inju...
Banwari and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All216; 1949CriLJ325
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. The applicants were convicted by a Special Magistrate, let Class, under Sections 147 and 323, Penal Code. Each of them was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 147, Penal Code, and of Rs. 25 under Section 323, Penal Code. (The total amount of fine payable by each of them thus came to Kb. 75). In default of the payment of fine, each of them was to undergo rigoroua imprisonment for three months under Section 147 and one month under Section 323, Penal Code, respectively.2. They filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Crown that no appeal lay. ThiS preliminary objection was baaed upon the provisions of Section 413, Criminal P. C. The learned Judge accepted this objection and held that the appeal was incompetent. He, however, treated the appeal aB a revision, went into the merits of the case and dismissed the revision. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.3. Mr. B. S. D...
Prohit Anandi Prasad and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ516
ORDERAgarwalla, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing an application in revision presented to him by the applicants against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Dehra Dun dated 2nd July 1946, which in its turn upheld the order of Mr. M. P. Tripathi, Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dehra Dun, dated 23rd March 1946.2. The facts appear to be as follows. Mahanfc Paras Bam is an influential person of Rishikesh. Prohit Paras Earn another gentleman, (not to be confused with Mahant Paras Earn), was pro. 3ecuted at the instance of Mahant Paras Earn through one Jagannath, probably his servant, under 8.107, Criminal P. 0, While this case was proceeding Prohit Paras Earn was ordered by the Court to enter into a bond to keep the peace during the pendency of those proceedings with two sureties in the sum of Es. coo each Thi8 was done. On 23rd March 1046, an incident was alleged to have happened in which Mahant Paras Earn was said to have been assau...
Mt. Jaraoo Vs. Sri Nath Byas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All308
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of a certain construction erected by the defendant on a plot of land lying to the south of the plaintiffs house. The plaintiff alleged that this construction had interfered with the passage of light and air into his house, that it had also involved an invasion of a right of privacy, inasmuch as the defendant had built a balcony attached to the new construction, from which it was possible for him to look through the windows in the plaintiff's house and watch the movements of the inmates of that house. On these allegations, along with a relief for demolition of the disputed construction, the Plaintiff also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her right of privacy and also an injunction requiring the defendant to remove that part of the construction which had covered up a chajja in the plaintiff's house.2. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit on certain concurrent f...
Prohit Anandi Prasad and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All322
ORDERAgarwalla, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing ah application in revision presented to him by the applicants against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Dehra Dun dated 2nd July 1946, which in its turn upheld the order of Mr. M. P. Tripathi, Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dehra Dun, dated 23rd March 1946.2. The facts appear to be as follows. Mahani Paras Ram is an influential person of Rishikesh. Prohit Paras Ram another gentleman, (not to be confused with Mahant Paras Ram), was prosecuted at the instance of Mahant Paras Ram through one Jagannath, probably his servant, under Section 107, Criminal P.C. While this case was proceeding Prohit Paras Ram was ordered by the Court So enter into a bond to keep the peace during the pendency of those proceedings with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 600 each This was done. On 23rd March 1946, an incident was alleged to have happened in which Mahant Paras Ram was said to have been assaulte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›