Allahabad Court August 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.
Ashraf Vs. Karim Bux and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All198
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that an ex parte decree dated 20th February 1942, obtained by the defendant in Suit No. 518 of 1941 of the Court of Munsif, Koil, Aligarh, was null and void.2. The plaintiffs' case was that under a permission obtained from the zamindar they had entered into possession of a plot of land and built a double storeyed house on it in November 1941, but that after the house had been constructed the defendant filed the suit referred to above for possession over the land necessarily involving a demolition of the building already erected by the plaintiffs. They further averred that when this suit was filed, they were not in their village, called Kharai, but that one of them was away in Delhi and the other of them away at Mussoorie; that in spite of this the defendant had wrongly got the summons of the suit issued to them by their village address, with the consequence that they were wholly unaware of the suit...
Gulab Vs. Madhusudan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All221
Seth, J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant in a suit which was originally fixed for hearing in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Farrukhabad on 8th January 1945. On the application of the defendant it was adjourned to 29th January 1945. The defendant was not present on that date and the suit was decreed ex parte against him. The order does not mention whether the ex parte decree was under Order 17, Rule 2 or under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P.C. The defendant applied to have the ex parte decree set aside taking the order of the Court to be one under Order 17, Rule 2, Civil P.C. He alleged certain facts in order to show that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on that date. The Munsif to whom the application was made for the setting aside of the ex parte decree has not recorded any finding on the point whether the defendant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree. He had dismissed the application on the ground that...
Saraswati Prasad Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ666
Chandiramani, J.1.The appellant, Saraswati Prasad was convicted by Mr. Khadim Ali, Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on 17th March 1948, under 8. 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five yeara and a fine of Ea. 8000 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case briefly was that the appellant was the manager of the U, P. Co-operative Development and Marketing Federation for purchasing paddy at Raunahi and Baragaon centres, that on 17th January 1947, Bs. 3000 were paid to him for paddy purchase, that instead of buying the paddy or returning the money he informed the authorities concerned that on 29th January 1947, at about 10 P. M. he had been robbed of the money. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had criminally nrisappropriat. ed the sum of Ks. 3000 and had committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof. The appellant admitted his employment and receipt of Rs. 8000 for the purpose of purchasing pad...
Saraswati Prasad Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All412
Chandiramani, J.1. The appellant, Saraswati Prasad was convicted by Mr. Khadim Ali, Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Faizabad, on 17th March 1948, under Section 409, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 8000 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case briefly was that the appellant was the manager of the U.P. Co-operative Development and Marketing Federation for purchasing paddy at Raunahi and Baragaon centres, that on 17th January 1917, Rs. 3000 were paid to him for paddy purchase, that instead of buying the paddy or returning the money he informed the authorities concerned that on 29th January 1947, at about 10 P.M. he had been robbed of the money. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had criminally misappropriated the sum of Rs. 3000 and had committed criminal breach of trust in respect thereof. The appellant admitted his employment and receipt of Rs. 3000 for the purpose of purchasing pa...
Sheo Mangal Singh Vs. ThakuraIn Maharaj Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All285; 1949CriLJ473
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. It would appear that one Thakurain Mahans Kunwar died on 6th July 1947. Two widows of Jadunath Singh, Mt. Mahraj Kuer and Mt. Drupdi Kuer. who are mothers-in. law of Mt. Mahans Kunwar and Shivamangal Singh, olaimed her property. Disputes began immediately after her death on 6th July 1047, and on 17th July 1947 the police of Mustafabad Police Station moved the Magistrate concerned for action under Section 145, Criminal P. C, against be to the parties, that is, Shivamangal Singh and the two widows. On 18th July 1947, the Court ordered attachment of moveable property and also immovable property. The moveable property was actually attached on 21st July 1947. It was not clearly indicated as to from whose possession the property had been recovered. The two widows filed an objection saying that proceedings under S, 145, Criminal P. C., cannot be taken in respect of moveable property, and the proceedings should accordingly be dropped. It was alleged that the moveable pr...
Ajodhiya Prasad and ors. Vs. Sitaram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All350; 1949CriLJ566
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. This is an application of Ajodhiya Prasad and two others against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Unao.2. It would appear that one Sita Earn made an application on 26th August 1947, to the Court concerned against 18 parsons for action under Section 107, Criminal P. O. Among the eighteen were included Ajodhiya Prasad, Mahabir and Mahab&l; Singh applicants. On 6th September 1947, the Magistrate concerned ordered that persons nos, l to 10 only should be summoned and process-fee should be deposited accordingly. Sita Bam somehow, while depositing the fees for 10 persons, asked that summonses be issued to ten persons including the present applicants Mahabir, Mahabal Singh and Ajodhiya Prasad. When these applicants appeared before the Court they protested and pointed out to the Court below that their names had deliberately been omitted by the Court and it was directed that the summonses should not be issued to them. On 27th November, the Magistrate himself acc...
Bisheshwar Dayal Vs. ZamIn Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All269
Ghulam Hassan, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the lower appellate Court arising out of his suit for enhancement of rent under Section 117, U.P. Tenancy Act. The suit was filed against several defendants but we are concerned with four defendants in the present appeal, viz., Zamin Ali, Sankata Prasad, Jafar and Raghubar Dayal, defendants 12 to 15 respectively. The defence was that the defendants were under-proprietors and hence they were not liable for enhancement of rent. This issue was remitted by the Assistant Collector, first class, before whom the suit was filed, to the Munsif. He found that the title of the defendants was established under the Settlement Court decrees passed on 24th December 1869. Exhibits A-15 and A-16 are the judgment and decree relating to Zamin Ali, Exs. A-17 and A-18 relate to Sankata Prasad and Jafar and Exs A-20 and A-21 to Raghubar Dayal, The decrees are identical in terms. A similar decree (Ex. A-22) which related to some other defe...
Ram Sahai Vs. Murli Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All509
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. These appeals filed by the defendants arise out of suits under Section 117, U.P. Tenancy Act, for enhancement of rent. The defendants are treated by the plaintiff-respondent as occupancy tenants, The defence was that the defendants are not occupancy tenants and there. lore their case is not covered by Section 117. Both the lower Courts have rejected the defence and have decreed the suit. The only question arising for determination in these appeals is whether the decision of the Courts below that the case is covered by Section 117, U.P. Tenancy Act is correct.2. It is not denied that the title which the defendants have put forward arise under a decree of the Settlement Court dated 24th December 1869, passed in favour of the defendants' ancestor. The decree, Ex. A-2, 'shows that the defendants' ancestor was not regarded as an occupancy tenant within the meaning of Section 5, Avadh Rent Act, but he was still granted qabzadari rights. It is argued before me that the defe...
Deputy Commissioner, Kheri Vs. the President Notified Area Committee, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All683
1. The appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Kheri, is the manager of the Court of 'Wards of the Mahowa estate which is the owner of the land in Nimsar on which the Aruwas fairs are held. The respondent is the Notified Area Committee of Misrikh-cum-Nimsar which was constituted by a Notification No. 3439/XI-194, dated 26th; November 1931, under Section 337, U.P. Municipalities Act- vide Ex, A-1.2. Under the powers conferred upon it by Section 338 (1), the Provincial Government has ex-tended to all notified Areas a large number of sections of the U.P. Municipalities Act, most of them in a modified form-vide Notification No. 72-M. o/xi-70 H, dated 6th June 1917, and Notification No. 2127/XI70-H, dated 22nd June 1917. Among the sections extended are 7, 8, 220 to 223, 293, 294 and 298, all in a modified form. They are printed in the Notified Area Manual at pp. i to 107.3. By another Notification No. 2032/xI 70 H dated 11th June 1917, the Provincial Government, acting under Section 327, U.P....
Ratan Lal and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ333
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. The five applicants were tried and convicted by a learned Magistrate of Naini Tal for an offence under Sub. rule (4) of Section 81, De-fence of India Rules, read with Clause 3, U. P. Food Grains Price Control Order, 1945. Four of them namely Ratan Lal, Khunni Lal, Saligram and Ramrichhpal, who are partners of the firm of Kishan Lal Ratan Lal of Haldwani, were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000 each. Raghunath Prasad, who is a Munim of that firm, was sentenced only to a rigorous imprisonment of 8 months. There was an appeal and it appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the case was argued at great length on merits as well as on law points. The arguments took one full day before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not enter into the merits of the ease. He only dealt with one law point, namely, whether in view of the provisions of Rule 130 (4), Defence of India, Rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »