Allahabad Court March 1949 Judgments
Changa and ors. Vs. ChaudhraIn Bhagwan Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All493
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Mr. Shri Nath, the learned Civil Judge of Bijnor, which I have found to be a model of a laboured, evasive and rambling document To give a picture of the judgment in a single sentence, it is based on a distortion of the most vital document on the record, on documents that had no bearing on the point in issue, on a certain former deposition of one of the defendants-appellants which really was not admissible and on a complete disregard of the entire body of the oral evidence, which, in fact, contained clear admissions of the truth of the case of the party against which the learned Judge decided the case by the witnesses of the opposite party in whose favour he decided it.2. The appellants before me are the six defendants against whom the respondent brought the suit leading to this appeal for possession over plot 05, measuring 11, and plot 98, measuring 7 biswas, total 18 biswas, in village Sarakthal Madhoo, Pargana Dhampur, Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Siddiq Vs. Mt. Zubeda Khatoon Through Abdul Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All616b
ORDERKidwai, J.1. This reference has been made by the District Magistrate of Lucknow to set aside an order passed by a Special Magistrate of the first class of Lucknow granting Mt. Zubeda Khatoon maintenance under Section 488, Cr. P. C., against her husband.2. The facts as they may be taken to be established at this stage are that Mt. Zubaida Khatoon, who is the lawfully married wife of the opposite party voluntarily left her husband's house & took up her residence with her father. The husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights & obtained a decree on 26-1-1946. The decree, however, was made conditional upon the husband paying Rs. 130 to the wife. This payment was made into Court but the wife did not obey the order contained in the decree for restitution & thereupon the husband applied that the money should be attached & not paid over to the wife until she obeyed the orders of the Court.3. In the meanwhile, the wife instituted suits for recovery of her dower debt & the do w...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Ahmadi Begum Vs. Sm. Kulsumun Nisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All644
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Pilibhit ordering the pltf. to pay the court-fee determined by the Munsarim in accordance with the directions of the Court.2. The pltf.-applicant brought a suit for partition of certain properties. One of the properties was a certain Habib market at Agra. He valued it at one lac The defts. challenged the valuation & urged that the amount of court-fee paid was insufficient. The Court decided to determine the issues of valuation & court-fee first.3. An amin was appointed who reported that the price of the market was Rs. 4,36,760. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that theproper valuation was Rs. 7,85,657 & ordered the pltf. to pay court-fee on his share of the property according to this valuation. Against this order the pltf. at first filed a First Appeal from order in this Court. On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the appellant desired that the appeal be converted into ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamman Singh Vs. Ratan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All480
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 650 as damages (not for refund of sale-consideration as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant) in the following circumstances.2. On 16th April 1936, the defendant-appellant applied under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, after which, on 21st April 1936, the proceedings were forwarded to the Special Judge under an order of the Collector. Later, on 9th June 1936, the defendant executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of a part of the property which became the subject of the proceedings under the said Act. On the basis of the deed, the vendees (respondents) laid a claim to the property purchased by them Under Section 11 of the Act. This claim was rejected on the ground that the sale-deed having been executed after the Collector had passed an order under Section 6 of the Act was absolutely void. It may be mentioned that after the sale-deed, the vendees ha...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohd. Liaq and ors. Vs. Ramji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All618
Desai, J.1. In 1931 the respondents obtain-ed a decree against Mir Muzaffar Husain for Es. 765 odd together with costs & interest. Mir Muzaffar Husain died on 21-1-1932 & has been succeeded by twelve persons, including the appellants. The first execution application was filed on 22-8-1932; it was really an application to bring the legal representatives of Mir Muzaffar Husain on the record. It was consigned to the Record Room on 22-12-1932. Second execution application was filed in July 1935 & was consigned to the Record Room on the ground that the legal representatives were agriculturists. Third application was filed in July 1938 & was consigned to the Record Room in February 1939. The fourth application was presented on 8-5-1941; it was for attachment of the house in which Mir Muzaffar Husain had a half share. The legal representatives filed several objections against the application. In the meantime one of the legal representatives filed a suit for partition of her share in the house...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Ahmed Vs. Sahu Bisheshwar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All554
Seth, J.1. This is an unfortunate case,' but it appears that the appellant himself is greatly responsible for his misfortune.2. The appellant applied under Section 20, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act praying that the proceedings be quashed. The Special Judge allowed the application on 14th December 1946 in the following words:The application is allowed. The proceedings under Section 20, Encumbered Estates Act will stand-quashed subject to payment of taxable costs of the opposite parties by the applicant within a month from today. The office will mention the costs in the formal order to be prepared in connection with this order. If the costs are not paid within the aforesaid time, the application will stand dismissed with costs to opposite parties.This order did not comply strictly with the requirements of Section 20, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act which gives powers to the Special Judge to pass such order as to costs of the proceedings as he thinks proper and provides that the order for quash...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Yakub Khan Vs. Sirajul Haq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All771
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against an order of the Civil Judge of Aligarh dated 16th January 1947 where. by he allowed an appeal against an order of the Munsif of Koil who had rejected the application of the plaintiff-opposite party for setting aside an award. The suit was referred to arbitration on the statements of the counsel for the parties. This statement was recorded not by means of an application but upon a court rubkar and was signed by the parties in the presence of the Court. The arbitrator so appointed made an award. Both parties raised objections to it. The objection of the defendant-applicant merely related to the order regarding costs in the award. The objections of the plaintiff-opposite party were several but we are concerned only with his objection that the reference to arbitration was invalid, as it was not in writing, as required by the Arbitration Act. The objection of the defendant applicant, with regard to costs, was overruled and...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Ishrat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All658
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. Qazi Saulat Husain was the zamindar and lambardar of village Kishanpur-Faridpur-Das. On 5 11-1936, he granted a theka of his entire zamindari share in the village, which was assessed to land-revenue amounting to Rs. 200, for a period of eight years, reserving an annual rant at of Rs. 500. After the death of Saulat Husain, on the expiry of the period of the theka, Qazi Ishrat Husain and others, the opposite party, as his heirs and legal representatives, instituted a suit in the revenue Court for ejectment, under Section 214, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, against Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the thekadar, who is the applicant before us. The suit was contested by the thekadar on the ground that the lessor had renewed the theka for a further period of five years, on the original terms. An issue about proprietary title, which arose in the suit, was decided by the civil Court under Section 286 (2) of the Act, and thereafter the suit was decreed. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs-...
Tag this Judgment!Ran Bejai Bahadur and ors. Vs. Ram AdhIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1951All550
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. On 27-10-1936, Ran Bijai Bahadur Singh and others, who have preferred this appeal, had filed an application,under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. The application was, in due course, transferred to the Special Judge, II grade, Allahabad; and the notices prescribed under the Act were duly published. The respondents, Ram Adhin and Sridhar, filed claims in respect of debts, which the landlords-applicants owed to them. There was no claim to the property mentioned in the notice under Section 11 of the Act. The claim put forward by the respondents were investigated and decrees under Section 14 of the Act were passed in their favour on 13-1-1939.2. The landlords-applicants preferred an appeal to the District Judge of Allahabad, against the decree passed in favour of Ram Adhin. During the pendency of the appeal the landlords-applicants made an application, under Section 20 of the Act, to the District Judge praying that the proceedings under the Act be quashed. On 8-...
Tag this Judgment!Dhapal Singh Vs. Gopi Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All471
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only question involved and to be decided in the appeal is one of limitation. The trial Court, holding that the suit was within time, decreed it, while the lower appellate Court being of the view that the claim was beyond time dismissed it. This appeal is against the latter decree.2. The sale deed in question was executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 on 15th December 1943, in regard to an undivided share in certain specific proprietary plots for Rs. 4000. It may be mentioned at once that this amount was accepted as the actual pale consideration and is no more open to question in this appeal.3. Admittedly the property covered by the above sale is what is known as 'protected land' within the meaning of the U.P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act XIV [14] of 1940. As such, under Section 24 of the Act, the property could not be permanently alienated without the permission of the A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »