Allahabad Court April 1948 Judgments
Dan Singh Bisht Vs. Firm Janki Saran Kailash Chander Dhampur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All396
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The defendant appellant filed an application for injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from cutting and removing the trees in dispute. When the application came up before us, we found that the granting or refusing of the temporary injunction might result in serious loss to one party or the other which it would not be possible to compensate when finally deciding the appeal. Both parties were anxious for the speedy disposal of the appeal and prayed that instead of passing any final orders on the application for injunction we might hear the appeal and decide it without the preparation of the paper book, the parties undertaking to have it prepared if the matter was taken further to the Federal Court.2. The dispute between the parties relates to their rights to certain standing timber in the district of Bijnor and Naini Tal. Raja Gajendra Shah was the owner of considerable property in the districts of Moradabad, Shahjahanpur, Bijnor and Naini Tal....
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal and anr. Vs. M.M. Gobardhan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All353
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent.2. Section 114, Civil P.C., gives the right to apply for review, and is:Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.3. Order 47 deals with the procedure with respect to the disposal of such applications for review. Rule 1 of this Order, however, mentions in Sub-rule (1) not only the grounds on which an application for review of judgment can be filed, but also the decree or...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath Prasad Shah Vs. the Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All446
Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff claims that he has by various transfers become the owner of a plot of land, No. C.K. 37/5,5. To the north of this plot is the Khandhar of one Pandit Tikam Ram Shukla.2. In the year 1914 land acquisition proceedings were started by the Collector of Benares who wanted to acquire the plots Nos. CK. 37/55 and 37/66 of the Khandhar of Pandit Tikam Ram Shukla for the Municipal Board so that the road known as Chauk and Neechibagh road may be widened. The notification under Section 6, Land Acquisition Act was published in due course and notices were also issued as required by Section 9. Under Section 9, Sub-section (3) the Collector was also required to serve notice to the effect that the Government intended to take possession of the land and claims to compensation for interest in such land may be made to him. He also directed that notices be sent to Tikam Ram Shukla and to Mt. Chaurasi who were believed to be the owners of the two plot...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dayal Dube Vs. Gyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All331
Malik, C.J.1. The facts are fully set out in the referring order. Gyan Singh, respondent, had executed three deeds of simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff appellant on 8-11-1928, 13-12-1930 and 22-6-1931. The total amount borrowed under these three deeds was Rs. 1,600. In the year 1933 the plaintiff appellant filed a suit, No. 350 of 1933, on foot of the three mortgages and prayed for a decree for sale. The suit was decreed on 11-12-1933. The decree-holder found that there was a prior mortgage dated 17-2-1928, executed by the defendant respondent Gyan Singh in favour of Larhaiti Lal. This mortgage was for Rs. 1,400 with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. The amount was payable within eighteen months from the date of the mortgage.2. As the property was not likely to fetch proper value if it was sold subject to the first mortgage, the plaintiff appellant decided to deposit the amount due to the first mortgagee, Larhaiti Lal, and he made a deposit of Rs. 2,825, the full amount due t...
Tag this Judgment!Khatoon Jannat Bibi Vs. Syed Wali Ullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All310
Malik, C.J.1. These are two connected matters. First Appeal no. 375 of 1945 arises out of a suit filed by Mt. Khatoon Jannat Bibi against her brother Syed Wali Ullah and his wife Mt. Humera Khatoon, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 24th November 1936, executed by Syed Wali Ullah in favour of Mt. Humera Khatoon is, so far as it relates to the property specified in List (b) at the foot of the plaint, invalid and null and void, and for possession of the said property to the plaintiff as mutwalli. She further claimed from Syed Waliullah accounts relating to all the amounts due to Syed Nabi Ullah mentioned in List (a) at the foot of the plaint and in List 4 of the will dated 11th May 1923 from the period beginning from 2nd July 1923, and it was prayed that the amount found due after rendition of accounts may be made over to the plaintiff by defendant 1. The suit was valued at Rs. 54,000.2. The allegations of the plaintiff were that Syed Nabi Ullah father of the plaintiff and Syed ...
Tag this Judgment!Amba Prasad Vs. Mumtaz Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All400
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by Amba Prasad objector against an order passed under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act. The land-lord applicants and the other creditors are the respondents to this appeal and though the names of four counsel are printed in the list and in the paper book as having been engaged on behalf of the respondents no one has appeared. Mr. Man Singh and Mirza Hamidullah Beg have with drawn from the ease on the ground that they have not been paid and Dr. M.A. Rauf is no longer at the Bar. Mr. Man Singh has stated that when Dr. Rauf gave up practice Mr. Man Singh was engaged in his place but he was never paid his fee. Mr. B. Dayal, we are informed, appears for the appellant. The result is that we have to decide this appeal only on the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant with-out any assistance from the counsel for the respondents.2. The history of this case is rather complicated. There was a decree for arrears of theka money against the landlor...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar Bhatt Vs. Gulab Shankar Bhatt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All448
Malik, C.J.1. The application under the (sic) Estates Act was filed by Gulab Sbankar Bhatt and others, who were members of a joint Hindu family. The case was decided by the Special Judge and papers were sent to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer for payment of the debts. It was at this stage that an application was filed by one Hari Shankar Bhattl claiming that he was an afterborn son and his father, Beni Shankar one of the applicants, had only a one-fifth share, half of which belonged to the appellant. The claim was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it was not mentioned when the appellant was born and why the application could not be filed earlier.2. The grounds on which the lower Court dismissed the objection were perfectly correct. But apart from these there is a further ground. and the appeal seems to have no force and must, therefore, fail. Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, provides that any person having any claim to the property mentioned in a notice issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Saraswati Devi Vs. Dharam Kirti Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All432
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder against the order passed under Section 9, U.P., Debt Redemption Act, amending a decree passed in favour of the appellant and reducing the amount from over Rs. 7000 to Rs. 5,933-60.2. The decree-holder had made a declaration under Section 4, U.P. Debt Redemption Act and it was argued on her behalf that as she had made that declaration the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to amend the decree, the provisions of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act being no longer applicable.3. The lower Court has, however, held that the judgment-debtor was not only an agriculturist but he also belonged to one of the classes specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (20) of Section 2, and the declaration, therefore, would not have the effect of depriving the judgment-debtor of the benefits of Section 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that this decision is wrong.5. It is not denied that the judgment-debtor is employed in...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Malik Vs. QamaruddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All349
Harish Chandra, J.1. The appellant Abdul Malik is the son of Mt. Najmunnissa who is one of the respondents to the present appeal, the main respondents being Qamar Uddin and Nazir Uddin, creditors in the case arising out of an application made by Mt. Najmunnissa under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, 1934. Originally the application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, was made both by Mt. Najmunnissa and her son, the present appellant. Later, the name of the appellant was deleted on an objection made by the creditors that he was not a landlord and thereafter Mt. Najmunniasa has been treated as the sole landlord in the case. Some house property stood in the name of the appellant. On 12th December 1922, he executed a tamliknama in favour of his mother with respect to that property conferring upon her the ownership of the house during her life time. On 20th November 1930, the mother executed a deed of relinquishment with respect to that property in favour of the appellant in order t...
Tag this Judgment!Shoran Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1948
Reported in: AIR1948All402
ORDERMootham, J.1. The applicants in these eight applications in revision have been prosecuted for offences alleged to have been committed by them under Section 4(1), U.P. Prevention of Adulteration' Act, 1912, within the limits of Anupshahr Notified Area. The prosecution in each case was instituted upon the order of the District Magistrate, and the question which arises is whether the District Magistrate or the Notified Area Committee was the proper authority to sanction such prosecutions.2. Section 12, Prevention of Adulteration Act, provides that:No prosecution under this Act shall be instituted without the order or consent in writing of the local authority, or in the case of a municipal board or cantonment authority, of the person or persons authorised in this behalf by the said municipal board or cantonment authorityand 'local authority' is defined in Section 2 of the Act as meaning.in the case of a municipality the Municipal Board, in the case of a cantonment, the Cantonment Auth...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »