Allahabad Court September 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.
Mohammad HasnaIn and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All351
Chandiramani, J.1. The appellants, Syed Mohammad Hasnain and his son-in-law, Syed Jafer Mehdi, were convicted by Mr., R.C. Verma, Sessions Judge, Bara Banki, on 20th April 1948, under Section 143, Penal Code, and sentenced each to: rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. It would appear that in the village of Rudauli in Bara Banki district resides one Ibtihajuddin. The appellants are his next-door neighbours. In front of their houses is a plot of land about 40' x 25' which has been the bone of contention between the parties. One party after another sought permission from the Notified Area for constructions on the land. Eventually on 10th June 1941, Ibtihajuddin obtained permission from the Notified Area. The appellant, Syed Mohammad Hasnain, who is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, was not satisfied and sent complaints to the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Tahsildar, Mr. Har Shankar Singh, reached Rudauli on 12th July 1941 and tried to bring about some sett...
NavIn Chander Vs. Mulu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All175
Seth, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of the District Judge of Farrukhabad dismissing the appeal filed before it on the ground that no appeal lay. The proceedings were initiated by an application under Section 142, U.P. Tenancy Act, in the Court of the Tahsildar. They were subsequently transferred to the Court of an Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector ultimately dismissed the application under Section 142, It has been held by the lower appellate Court that the dismissal of an application under Section 142, U.P. Tenancy Act, does not amount to a decree and as such is not appealable. Appeals to the District Judge lie only in such cases as have been provided for under Rs.265 and 271, Tenancy Act. The order of the Assistant Collector could be appealed against under Section 265 only if it were a decree. It could not be appealed against as an order under Section 271 of the Act because it is not; one of those orders against which an appeal has been provided for in ...
Jit Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Babu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All541
ORDERKidwai, J.1. The counsel for respondents 12 to 15 files an application stating that the land revenue of the property involved in this appeal is about Rs. 1000 a year and that the valuation of the appeal for the purposes of jurisdiction can, therefore, be not less than Rs. 80,000. He, therefore, contends that this is a case which should be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants urges that he is concerned only with the equity of redemption and that Rs. 2000 is the valuation of the equity of redemption. This is an appeal under the Encumbered Estates Act and it arises out of objections filed under Section 11 of that Act. Objections under Section 11 are filed as to the inclusion of any particular property in the list of properties of the landlord applicant. In the present case the property which was included in the list of the landlords-applicants' properties, published in the Gazette, was village Aini Buzurg and not the equity of redemption in t...
indarpal Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Humangi Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All663
1. This is the defendants' appeal from the decree, dated 17th April 1944, passed by the Civil Judge of Sitapur decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for possession over the properties in suit.2. The following pedigree will explain the facts:JIT SINGH|--------------------------------------------------| |First wife Second wife| |------------------------------------ || | |Putan Singh Fateh Singh || (Issueless) |Parwan Singh = Bhagwan Kuar || |Lalla Singh || |-------------------------------------------- || | |Indrapal Singh Raja Bux Singh |(Defendant 1) (Defendant 2) |----------------------------------------| |Sudha Singh Pahalwan Singh(Issueless) |-------------------------------------| |First wife Second wife| (Ram Kuar)| |-------------------------------------------- || | |Drigbijai Singh = Mt. Raj Kuar Daughter = Bibhnath |(Died on 1-11-1906) (Died on 24-12-1931) | |Kunwar Indra Bikram Singh |(Plaintiff 1) |Daughter |--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------...
Municipal Board Vs. Sami Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All220; 1949CriLJ331
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate of Banaras. The opposite party, Sami Ullah, was prosecuted under Sections 185, 307 and 299, U. P. Municipalities Act. He was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 15. The Municipal Board, at whose instance the accused was prosecuted, went up in revision to the District Magistrate of Banara9. In its view, the fine was too little and should have been Hs. 100 which was the minimum laid down in a bye law framed by it with the sanction of the Local Government under Section 299 (l)i Municipalities Act. The learned Additional District Magistrate before whom the revision came up for hearing has accepted the plea of the Municipal Board and has made this reference.2. Section 299 (1), U. P. Municipalities Act, empowers Municipal Boards to make rules with the sanction of the Provincial Government directing that a breach of the rules made by it under other sections of the Act shall be punishable with a fine which ...
Ram Chandra Sahai and ors. Vs. Bishambhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All737
Sapru, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for accounts under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act XXVII [27] of 1934) read with Section 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act (Act XIII [13] of 1940). The respondent is the debtor mortgagor and the appellants are the creditors mortgagees. The suit has been decreed by the learned Civil Judge and the real point in the case is one of interpretation of Section 9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act.2. The questions regarding that section have been raised before us. The first point that has been argued is that in determining the principal amount due on the simple mortgage dated 29th October 1907 the Court was bound to treat as principal the accumulated interest inasmuch as there was an express provision in that mortgage for payment of compound interest. We are satisfied that there is no substance in this argument. The proviso to Section 9 lays down that the Court shall treat as principal any accumulated interest which has been conv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›