Allahabad Court November 1949 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.
Chandra Mohan and ors. Vs. Raghunath Pd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All338
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application by plaintiffs against an order restoring an application made by the defendants respondents for setting aside an ex parte decree.2. In 1931, the plaintiffs' mother filed a suit for a declaration that a certain will executed by her father in favour of the defendants was null and void. Raghunath Prasad, defendant opposite party, was one of these defendants. He did not contest the suit. The suit was contested by the first five defendants. The suit was decreed in 1933 by the trial Court. An appeal by the contesting defendants was dismissed for default by this Court in December 1933. More than 11 years later, that is, on 31st January 1945, Raghunath Prasad filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application was fixed for hearing on 15th September 1945. On that date the opposite party was absent and the Court fixed 17th September 1945 for hearing. On 17th September the opposite party made an application for adjournment. This appli...
Rex Vs. L. Johari Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All337
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the respondents, Lala Johari Mal and Lala Ram Mohan Lal, who were convicted by a Magistrate of the first class for an offence Under Section 27(5)(b), U. P. Sugar Factories Control Act (l [l] of 1938), but who have been acquitted on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Pilibhit.2. It is not necessary for us to enter into the numerous questions of fast and law which were argued before the learned Magistrate and before the learned Sessions Judge, for, in our opinion, this appeal fails on a very short ground.3. Section 27 (5) (b), under which the respondents were prosecuted, makes it penal for any person to purchase or sell cane in a reserved area in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act prohibits the purchase of cane grown in a reserved area without the permission of the Provincial Government, by the purchasing agency or by...
Sri Ram and anr. Vs. Harbans Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All399
Waliullah, J.1. These are two connected appeals by the judgment-debtors arising out of two orders passed by the Court below dismissing certain objections tiled by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P. C. Appeal No. 573 of 1945 is directed against an order passed on 6-9-1945, by which the Court below dismissed the objections filed by the appellants in regard to the attachment and sale of certain trees standing in what is described as the Nau Chandi grove. Subsequently the decree-holders respondents put in another application praying that the execution of the decree might be effected by attachment and sale of the proprietary rights of the judgment-debtors in the plot described as Nau Chandi plot where the Nau Chandi grove stands.2. The objections filed in both these cases virtually raise the same points in regard to the sale of the property attached. We, therefore, propose to dispose of both these appeals by one and a common judgment.3. It appears that Sri Ram and Triloki Prasa...
inayat and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All369
Seth, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an interlocutory order in a pending criminal case. Ordinarily, this application should have been dismissed on this ground alone. We, however, decided to consider it on merits and to decide the question of law raised by it, because there is an order by the learned Judge, who issued notice upon this application, stating that the question of law raised in this application is of some importance and deserves to be considered by a Bench of two Judges.2. The applicants are on their trial for an offence under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act. During the course of the trial, was tendered in evidence a report from the Inspector of Explosives. It was received in evidence and exhibited without any objection on the part of the defence, the result of which was that the trial proceeded further on the assumption that that document was not required to be formally proved. It seems, that at the time when this document was received in evidenc...
Hinga Vs. Ali Sher and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All628
ORDER1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by Mr. Gopal Chandra Sinha Additional Civil Judge, Hardoi, in a proceeding initiated by an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. It arises on the following facts: Durga Prasad, Gaya Prasad & Nand Ram owned a 10 biswas zamindari share in village Jalalpur in Hardoi district. By a deed dated 20-10-1904, they sold this share to Sardar Khan, Turab Khan, Kaley Khan, Ahmad Khan, Munir & Karim for a conaideration of Rs. 1000. Two preemption suits were filed in reapect of this sale, one by Imami, grandfather of the present petitioner Hinga, & the other by one Bhagga. Both the pre-emptors were held to be equally entitled to pre-emption. It was agreed that pre-emption of half of the property Bold be decreed in favour of Imami on payment of Rs. 500 & the other half in favour of Bhagga on the same terms. Imami did not deposit the pre-emption money in Court. On the other hand, he created a usufructuary mortgage over t...
Suryapal Singh Creditor No. 5 Vs. Kr. Nahar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All311
Malik, C.J. 1. This appeal hag been filed by creditor No. 5 of the landlords applicants, who was classed as a secured creditor in class III. Along with him certain other creditors who had mortgages in their favour were also placed in the same class. The decision of the learned Special Judge is dated 30th May 1943. The limitation for filing an appeal against that decision expired on 6th September 1943. The appeal was filed two days beyond time on 8th September 1943, but the other secured creditors were not impleaded as parties to this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned on 28th July 1944. It was not till 9th December 1944 that an application purporting to be an application under Order l, Rule 10, Order 41, Rule 33, and Section 151, Civil P. C., was filed to implead the Satya Narain Bank Limited, Babu Lal, Risal Singh and others and Nemi Chand. In the affidavit filed in support of the application no facts are given which would justify the extension of the period of limita...
Hari Har Dut Singh Vs. Deep NaraIn Prasad Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All303
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an application for amendment of the decree under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act. The appellant, Hari Har Dut Singh executed a mortgage of joint family properties on the basis of which mortgage a suit was filed by the creditor. Shyam Narain, minor son of the appellant, was also impleaded along with the appellant as a defendant to the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit only against the half share of the property, but the suit was decreed in full by this Court in appeal. The decision of this Court was affirmed by the Privy Council.2. On 9th April 1943, the appellant made an application under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act, praying that as he was an agriculturist within the meaning of that Act, the decree might be amended according to the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge dismissed this application on the ground that the appellant was liable to pay only half the amount and that since...
Dr. Ram Babu Saksena Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All342
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application under Sections 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C. A warrant dated 8th May 1949, was issued by Shri. V. K. B. Pillai, Regional Commissioner (who now takes the place of the Political Agent) of the United State of Rajasthan, under Section 7, Extradition Act, 1903 (XV [15] of 1903) for the arrest of the applicant, Dr. Ram Babu Saxena, and for his removal to the United State of Rajasthan to be delivered to the District Magistrate of Tonk for enquiry into certain offences against the laws of that State which he is said to have committed. The warrant was addressed to the District Magistrate of Naini Tal within whose jurisdiction the applicant resided at that time. The warrant authorised the District Magistrate of Naini Tal to release the applicant on bail if he furnished a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount, The warrant was served upon the applicant at Naini Tal on 23rd May 1949 and he was, thereafter, released on bail a...
Ramesh Chandra Vs. Kanchan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All340
Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought Under Section 172, U. P. Tenancy Act The suit was defended, inter alia, on the ground, that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. This plea and other pleas raised in defence were overruled and the suit was decreed.2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of first instance, the defendant appealed to the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed and the decree of the Court of first instance was modified to this extent that the defendant was given the benefit Under Section 173, U. P. Tenancy Act. The decision of the lower appellate Court is attacked before me on one ground and one ground only, namely, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.3. Section 265, U. P. Tenancy Act, provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in any suit included in Group 'A' of Schedule 4 in which the amount or value of the subject-matter of the appeal exceeds ...
Mst. Hirania Vs. Sm. Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All367
ORDERSeth, J. 1. Some property belonging to the applicants Tikamsingh and Jaipal Singh was sold in execution of a decree against them. The sale took place on 23rd August 1947. The judgment-debtors desired to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C. For that purpose they had to deposit the decretal amount and five per cent. extra for payment to the auction purchaser, and to make an application for setting aside the sale on or before 22nd September 1947. It was the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Koil, in which the deposit was to be made and to which the application was to be made. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not hold his Court either on 22nd September 1947, or on the following day. The money could not, therefore, be deposited in that Court on those two dates, nor could an application be made on those dates. A tender was, however, delivered by the judgment-debtors' pleader to some officer of that Court on 23rd September 1947 as appears from the order sheet of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »