Allahabad Court December 1948 Judgments
Saghir UddIn Vs. Mt. Munni and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All428; 1949CriLJ674
Desai, J.1. The facts in this application in revision are very simple. The applicant instituted a complaint under s. 494 and 498, Penal Code, against the opposite party. The trial Court, after recording his evidence, framed a charge against the opposite party and fixed I7tb October 1947 for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. When the case was called out on 17th October 1947, the complainant and his witnesses were absent and at the request of his counsel the case was adjourned to 5th November 1947. On that date also, the applicant was absent and his counsel again applied for adjournment on the ground of his illness. The trial Court was not satisfied with the plea of illness and did not understand why, even if the applioant was ill, his witnesses could not be present to be cross-examined. It rejected the application, refused to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined before the charge on the ground that they were not subjected to oross.examination, conolu...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. the Panchayati Akhara
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All367
Malik, C.J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brothers Seth and Bhargava and after the full discussion of the question by them it is not necessary for me to say much. I have already indicated my views in my referring order. I agree with my brother Bhargava that a decree-holder can file an application for execution either in person or through a recognised agent or through a duly appointed pleader. My brother Seth has set out the various steps that have to be taken in the preparation of and in filing a plaint or a memorandum of appeal or an application. As he has pointed out, some of these steps require personal skill or care or exercise judgment, while others are purely ministerial acts and do not need such skill or care. Before the document is brought before the Court the various steps taken amount to preparation, the penultimate step which gives the document, in other respects complete, its legal character, is putting it before the Court in accordance with the rul...
Tag this Judgment!Maqbool Ahmad and ors. Vs. Debi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All455
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants and for recovery of Rs. 30 as damages for use and occupation.2. The plaintiffs' case was that one Badrul Islam was the owner of the disputed site and the houses thereon, which, under a rent deed dated 31st December 1934, were occupied by the defendants on a yearly rent of Rs. 60. The land is situate in what is known as 'Sarai Badrul Islam in Qasba Nehtaur, district Bijnor.'3. In April 1943, after the death of Badrul Islam, his heirs transferred the sardi to the plaintiffs who brought the suit as its present owners. Their main complaint was that the defendants had unlawfully settled in the sarai other persons and thereby made themselves liable to ejectment.4. The defence taken was that, while Badrul Islam was the owner of the site, he was not the owner of the houses which had really been built by defendants l to 4 and 6 with the consent of the proprietor of the sarai. The defendants al...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Singh Vs. Bharat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All542
1. The sole controversy in this second appeal relates to jurisdiction.2. The suit was for possession of certain tenancy lands on the basis of a patta from the landlord and for recovery of damages. The defendant Kunj Behari who has since died and is now represented by Basdeo Singh appellant set up a rival claim to tenancy. The learned Munsif, Partabgarh, who investigated the case passed a decree in favour of Bharat Singh plaintiff, and the decree was confirmed by the learned Civil Judge, Partabgarh, in appeal. It is not denied on behalf of the defendant, and indeed it could not be disputed in view of the decision in the case of Ori Lal v. Ganeshi A.I.R. (34) 1947 Oudh 104 F.B., that the suit was rightly instituted in civil Court. It is contended, however, that in view of the recent alteration of Section 180, Tenancy Act by Section 18, U.P. Tenancy (Amendment)' Act of 1947 (U.P. Act [10] of 1947) the learned Munsif must now be deemed to have decided; the case without jurisdiction. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath Sahu and ors. Vs. Srikant Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All589
Seth, J.1. Guptar Dube and Loknath Dube executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Jagarnath and Suraj Nath on 23rd May 1922, for a sum of Rs. 1,300. It was registered on 22nd June 1922. The property mortgaged consisted of fourteen specific plots comprising an area of 3.32 acres. The mortgagors are dead. Their sons applied under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act for the redemption of the mortgage. They impleaded as opposite parties not only the two mortgagees, Jagarnath and Suraj Nath, but also their father, Rachha Sahu. Rachha was impleaded on the allegation that his name stood fictitiously recorded as a tenant over two of the mortgaged plots, Nos. 554 and 240, comprising an area of 34 acres. It was alleged that, in fact, the mortgagees themselves were in possession of these two plots. The plaintiffs prayed for actual possession of all the plots mortgaged including the aforesaid two plots over which Rachha's name was recorded as a tenant. Rachha pleaded that he had no con...
Tag this Judgment!Arbind Kumar Deb and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ701
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under B, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such poaeession be without lawful authority or lawful exouse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active step prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facta of...
Tag this Judgment!Arbind Kumar Deb and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All473
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such possession be without lawful authority or lawful excuse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active steps prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facts...
Tag this Judgment!Ulfat Rai Vs. Sm. Kamla Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All458
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain zamindari and house properties. The plaintiff claimed as the adopted son of one Jawahir Mal, whose pedigree is set out below:A------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Lakhpat Bansu Sangam Lal Jawahir Mal Shugun ChandRai Lal | | || Ranjit Ullat Rai Mithan Lal=Mt. Sunehri| (adopted son) (adopted son) || Defdt. 4. || Mt. Kamla Defdt. 1.------------------------| |Shankar Umrao| |Kashmiri Lal Defdt. 3. Italian Lal Defdt, 2.|----------------------| |Sukhbir. Ulfat Rai Plaintiff.2. The property in dispute admittedly belonged to Shugun Chand in the above pedigree, who died in 1918. His son Mithan Lal had pre-deceased him, Mithan Lal left a widow Mt. Sunehri and a daughter Mt. Kamla. On the death of Shugun Chand his property was entered in the khewat in the name of his daughter-in-law, Mt. Sunehri, who died on 28th January 1941, and on her death it came to be recorded i...
Tag this Judgment!Ghalib Rasool and anr. Vs. Mangu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All382
Bhargava, J.1. On 5th September 1988, L. Mangu Lal and L. Raja Ram, who are the respondents in this appeal, instituted a suit against Sheikh Ghalib Rasool and Mr. Zahoor Jahan Begam, the appellants, in the Court of the Civil Judge of Saharanpur, for rendition of accounts of a partnership, which had been dissolved in the year 1935, and for recovery of such amount as might be found due to them. The plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 130 and stated in their plaint that if any sum in excess of Rs. 130 would be found due, they would pay additional court-fee on that sum at the time of the execution of the decree. In their written statement, filed on 15th February 1939, the defendants urged that, on accounts being taken, the plaintiffs would be found liable to pay a sum of money to them. On 27th May 1942, a preliminary decree was passed and a commissioner was appointed to examine the accounts. The commissioner examined the accounts and reported that no amount was due to the plaintiffs from the...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shiam and ors. Vs. Official Receiver of the Estate of Ram Chara ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All464
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of certain proceedings under the Insolvency Act. The order appealed against was led by the learned District Judge of Kanpur dismissing an appeal by the present appellants against an order of the Insolvency Judge. The facts giving rise to that appeal and leading to the present appeal are as follows:2. The Official Receiver, on 18th January 1939, attached a certain house in the course of the realization of the debts due from the insolvents Ram Charan Das and his son Kanhaiya Lal. Mt. Parbati, wife of Ram Charan, objected as she claimed to be the owner of the house, and with a view to have this matter adjudicated upon she filed an application under Section 68, Insolvency Act, before the Insolvency Judge on 23rd January 1939. That was Misc. case No. 33 of 1939. The basis of the claim made by Mt. Parbati was that she had acquired an absolute title in the house under a deed of gift executed by her husband Ram Charan Das, one of the insolvents...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »