Allahabad Court December 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.
Hansraj Singh and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ958
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application under B. 205, Government of India Act, 1935, for a certificate of leave of appeal to the Federal Court from the order passed by me in Criminal Appeal no. 185 of 1947 on 18th September 1948. It was filed on the 8oth September 1948. The petitioners were the appellants in the criminal appeal. The ground on which a certificate is prayed for is that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of 8.270, Government of India Act of 1935. In Paras. Nos. (4)(as amended by a supplementary affidavit) and (5) of the affidavit filed in support of the application, an at. tempt has been made to elaborate the ground On which this certificate is prayed for, It is to this effect;2. In Para (4) it is asserted that the appellants 1 to 7 were acting in their official capacity in the discharge of their duties when they com-mitted the acta complained of. In Para. (5) it is stated that in this case a question arises whether; Rule 270, Go...
Hansraj Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All632
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application under Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, for a certificate of leave of appeal to the Federal Court from the order passed by me in criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1947 on 13th September 1948. It was filed on the 30th September 1948. The petitioners were the appellants in the criminal appeal. The ground on which a certificate is prayed for is that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Section 270, Government of India Act of 1935. In Paras. Nos. (4) (as amended by a supplementary affidavit) and (5) of the affidavit filed in support of the application, an attempt has been made to elaborate the ground on which this certificate is prayed for. It is to this effect:2. In para (4) it is asserted that the appellants 1 to 7 were acting in their official capacity in the discharge of their duties when they committed the acts complained of. In Para. (5) it is stated that in this case a question arises whether Sect...
L. Bishun Das Vs. L. Laxmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All596
ORDERSeth, J.1. Of the two adjoining premises situate at the Mall, Kanpur, and bearing municipal Nos. 18/53 and 18/54, the former was being occupied by the defendant-applicant Bishan Das, who carried on the business of selling fresh and dried fruits under the name and style of 'Kashmir Fruit Mart', the latter was in the occupation of the plaintiff opposite party, Lakshmi Narain, who carried on the business of a general merchant under the name and style of Messrs. Chotey Lal and Sons. The cent of no, 18/53 was higher than the rent of No. 18/54-the difference between the rent of the two premises being Rs. 15 per month. It appears that the business of Bishan Das prospered and he found no. 18/53 too small for his requirements. Bishan Das, accordingly, shifted to another nearby shop bearing municipal No. 18/169. He then came to know that certain other persons were negotiating with the land-lord of no. 18/53 for taking it on rent with a view to set up a rival business of selling fresh and dr...
Mt. Ram Dei Vs. Mt. Gyarsi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All545
Malik, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of my learned brother, Kaul and agree with the answers proposed to be given by him. I only wish to add that, to my mind, the texts of the Mitakshara leave no doubt that the sons have a right by birth both in the self-acquired as well as in the ancestral property of the father. In the Mitakshara part II, chap. I, Section 1 (3) heritage is divided into two classes, unobstructed and obstructed, (apratibandha) and (sapratibandha). The wealth of the father or of the parternal grand-father is declared to be apratibandha in which the sons or grandsons get a right by birth. Again in the same chapter, Section 1 (27) it is laid down that 'It is a settled point, that property in the paternal or ancestral estate is by birth.' In the ancestral joint family property the father has the right to make a transfer for legal necessity and for payment of his antecedent debts which are not tainted with immorality (avyavaharik). In the self-acquired property the texts p...
Ram Charan and anr. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ694
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Nathu Ham and Bam Charan were convicted under Section 7, U. P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act 11 [2] of 1947), read with U. P. Notification No. 65/c. s.- 534-1942, dated 11th February 1943 and sentenced to different amounts of fine. Their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. They have come up in revision.2. The facts leading to their conviotion are, that Ram Charan sold a quantity of match be xes at Chirgaon, District Jhansi, on 3rd June 1947, to Nathu Ram, who has a shop at Bhander in Gwalior State. After these match-boxes had been loaded in a motor'lorry the police arrested Nathu Ram and lodged a report about the incident.3. The notification above referred to is:In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India-Rules, the Governor is pleased to order that no person shall export, carry or cause to be carried by rail, road or river any matches from any place within the limits of the United Provinc...
Balwant and anr. Vs. Jiram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All415
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption by three persons in respect of a sale-deed dated 21st October 1942, executed by Bakhtawar, defendant 3, in respect of a certain zamindari share in khewat No. l of village Goila, district Muzaffarnagar in favour of Balwant and Ganga Ram, defendants l and 2 respectively, who are the appellants in this case.2. Prior to the above sale deed, the vendor Bakhtawar had sold to the three plaintiffs on 18th October 1938, plot No. 1349 measuring 1 bigha and 14 biswas out of a larger area. Again, on 18th February 1939 Bakhtawar had by a deed of exchange transferred to Jagram, one of the plaintiffs, a cerain undivided share in khewat No. 1.3. As regards this last transfer, the trial Court held that Jagram plaintiff was the absolute owner of the property covered thereby and that the other plaintiffs had not acquired any interest therein. The lower appellate Court left this question untouched.4. The trial Court, hol...
Ram Charan and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All463
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Nathu Ram and Ram Charan were convicted under Section 7, U.P. Control of Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (Act II [2] of 1947), read with U.P. Notification No. 65/C.S.-534-1942, dated 11th February 1943 and sentenced to different amounts of fine. Their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. They have come up in revision.2. The facts leading to their conviction are, that Ram Charan sold a quantity of match boxes at Chirgaon, district Jhansi, on 3rd June 1947, to Nathu Ram, who has a shop at Bhander in Gwalior State. After these match-boxes had been loaded in a motor-lorry the police arrested Nathu Ram and lodged a report about the incident.3. The notification above referred to is:In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81, Defence of India-Rules, the Governor-is pleased to order that no person shall export, carry or cause to be carried by rail, road or river any matches from any place within the limits of the United Provinces to...
Sarju Ram Sahu Vs. Kamal Kishore Agarwala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All528
Bhargava, J.1. Sarju Ram Sahu has filed this appeal against an order, dated 20th May 1943, passed by the Additional Civil Judge of Gorakhpur, setting aside a sale, which was held on 22nd May 1942, in execution of his decree against Jugal Kishore and Ors. staying the execution proceedings under Section 7 (1), U.P. Encumbered Estates Act and directing that the same be consigned to the records. Jugal Kishore is dead. Dularna Bibi (respondent 8) is the widow, Kamal Kishore and Nawal Kishore (respondents 1 and 4) are the sons, and Subodh Chandra and Krishna Kishore (respondents 2 and 5) are the grandsons of Jugal Kishore.2. On 31st August 1915, Jugal Kishore and Nawal Kishore executed a sale deed in favour of Sarju Ram Sahu in respect of certain property for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. The sale was set aside at the instance of the sons of the vendors. Sarju Ram Sahu thereupon instituted Suit No. 155 of 1926 against the vendors to recover the amount of sale consideration. On 22nd February...
Jokhan Misra Vs. Mahesh Pandit and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All637
Agarwala, J.1. An interesting point of law has been raised in this appeal. A decree for money was passed against the appellant's father, Kauleshwar Misra in 1939. After Kauleshwar Misra's death the decree is now being executed against his son, the appellant, by attachment of mortgagee rights in an occupancy holding. It appears that Kaujeshwar Misra had obtained a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding by a deed dated 19th April 1939. These rights are now with the appellant and he apparently has possession of the occupancy holding. The decree-Holders want to attach these rights for what they are worth and to sell them. The appellant objected that they could not be attached and sold. Both the Courts below have held that the rights are attachable and saleable and have dismissed the objection. He has came up in appeal to this Court.2. Now, Section 23, U.P. Tenancy Act, [It should be Agra Tenancy Act. The corresponding provision in the U.P. Tenancy Act (XVIII [17] of 1939), is Sectio...
Faqir Mohammad Khan Vs. Hari Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All638
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a landlord's appeal against an order in certain proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The order in question was passed by the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad dismissing an appeal by the land-lord against an order of the Special Judge, 2nd grade of that place, rejecting his application praying that a certain previous application of his be decided on the merits. The relevant facts are these.2. Before the passing of the Debt Redemption Act on 1st January 1941, the landlord appellant has applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, and the proceedings eventually came before the learned Special Judge who passed a decree against him in favour of the respondents, which was sent to the Collector for execution. The schedule of properties owned by the appellant included some groves which were published as forming part of List B in the local gazette. Subsequently, after the Debt Redemption Act had come into force, the appellant, on 18th August 1942, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »