Allahabad Court April 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.
Panchayti Akhara Vs. JitnaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All273
Agarwala, J.1. This is a deft's. appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration &, in the alternative for possession. 2. In 1913 the plff. respondent executed a sale deed in respect of plot No. 108 (which is the subject-matter of dispute before me) in favour of the deft-appellant. To this sale deed the provision of Section 3, Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act II(2) of 1903 applied. According to that section the permission of the Collector of the district in which the land was situated had to be obtained in order to give effect to the sale deed. 3. The present suit was filed in 1944. The plff. alleged that, as no permission under Section 3, of the aforesaid Act had been taken for the alienation, the alienation could, at the best, be treated as usufructuary mortgage for a period of over 20 years under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act & that as those 20 years have expired within 12 years of the suit, he was entitled to get back possession. 4. The defence to the suit was that, alth...
Maiku Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All430
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by Maikuagainst the decree of the Civil Judge os Shahjahanpurby which he upheld the decree of the Munsif of Shahjanpur in a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent. 2. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was foran injunction restraining the defendant-appelantfrom constructin a mosque within a hundred yards of the plaintiff-respondent's temple. Theparties reside in Mohalla Azizganj within theMunicipal limits of Shahjahanpur. In that Mohalla,there is an old temple os Shivji of whichthe plaintiff-respondent is the manager. The appellant had been trying to construct a mosque ata distance of about forty-four yards from thetemple. In that connection, the appelant hadonce before applied to the Municipal Board ofShahjahanpur in 1938. At that time, however, hisapplication was rejected on the opposition of theHindus of the locality. In 1943, the appellantagain applied to the Municipal Board for permissionto build a mosque and was granted the necessarypermission...
In Re: Court-fee Reference
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All639
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a reference by the Collector of Allahabad under Section 19H(4), Court-fees Act with respect to the estate of the late Mr. J. M. David of Allahabad. The question that has to be decided is whether the valuation! arrived at by the Collector, of tha properties left by the late Mr. J. M David is correct or not. According to the petitioner's valuation, the court-fee payable on the application for probate in this Court is Rs. 7,674-4-0. But according to the valuation of the Collector, the amount of court-fee required is Rs. 8,846-7-0 only. The Collector's valuation was not accepted by the petitioner. Her objection was that the properties should be valued on the date on which the late Mr. J. M. David died & not on the date of the application. Section 19-I is as follows :'No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of Probate or Letters of Administration shall be made until the petnr. has filed in the Court.....a valuationaccording to the market rates current on the dat...
Balram Das Vs. Harakh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All754
Seth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same case in the following circumstances : On 12th January 1945, the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was absent. He had engaged two lawyers. They were sent for, but they refused to address arguments in the appeal saying that they had no instructions. The Court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal, with the following order:I see no force in this appeal which the vakils for the appellant did not argue on the excuse that they have no instructions. The respondents' vakil is present. Appeal dismissed with costs.Treating this order to be an order of dismissal for default, an application was made for the restoration of the appeal. That application was also rejected. Second Appeal No. 1007 of 1945 has been filed against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal itself and F.A.F.O. No. 37 of 1915 has been filed against the order refusing to restore the appeal.2. It is obvious that both these appeals cannot...
Rameshwar Vs. DIn Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All424
Desai, J.1. Rameshwar appellant filed one suit against Din Dayal respondent on the basis of a promissory note in August 1942. In the same month, he filed another suit on the basis of another promissory note against Din Dayal respondent in the connected second civil appeal No. 269. Rameshwar is a resident of village Nawwa Behar whereas Bhagirath and Din Dayal are residents of village Shankerpur. A process server accompanied by Rameshwar took the summonses to Shankerpur for service on Din Dayal and Bhagirath on 18.8.1942. The process server wrote identical reports on the summonses to the effect that they were offered to the defendants (Din Dayal and Bhagirath), that they refused to acceptthem in spite of his entreaties and that perforce he had to affix them on their doors. The reports purport to have been signed by the appellant and two witnesses. Neither of the respondents appeared when the suits were called cut for hearing on 16-9-1942 and the Court proceeded ex parte against them and ...
Jeewan and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ884
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Jeewan, Mukhram and Baru appeal against their conviction under 8.366, Penal Code and sentence of five years' R.I .. for having abducted Mt. Shanti from village Rohana on 24th September 1947.2. Mt. Shanti used to live with her father Manphool in village Rohana. She was recovered from the house of Baru, appellant, on the evening of 29th September 1947. Baru gave out that he had purchased her for Ks. 800 from Mukhram. Mt. Shanti alleged that she had been forcibly lifted and carried by Mukhram and Jeewan from a grove of village Rohana, that Baru met Jee-wan and Mukhram 'after a mile Cr so and that Jeewan then returned to Robana and Baru and Mukhram took her to village Lohari where they reside, The village people held a Panchayat and seemed to have gone into the matter thoroughly, Manphool, the father of the girl, was called the next mCrning. On 80th September, they again discussed the matter and finally Baru, Mukhram and Mt. Shanti were sent to police outpost at Charth...
Ram Bilas Gupta Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All748
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a habeas corpus application cinder Section 491, Criminal P.C., by one Ram Bilas Gupta of Basti. It appears that on 15th December 1948, he was arrested but was released at 7 P.M., on day following. At that time there was no warrant for his arrest and no order passed under the U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947. On 31st December 1948, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 3 (2) of the Act and the applicant was arrest-d and detained for a period of fifteen days. On 8th January 1949, the Provincial Government passed an order of detention under Clause (a) of (Sub-section (1) of Rule 8 of the Act and directed the detention of the applicant for a period of six months. The same day the grounds of detention under Section 5 of the Act were drawn up and communicated to the applicant a few days later. These grounds are as follows:You took a leading part in instigating the sweepers at Basti to stage an illegal strike on 13th ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›