Allahabad Court May 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.
Channu Lal and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All692; 1950CriLJ199
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application ia revision against an order of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Mainpuri dismissing an appeal against an order of Mr. B. P. Sabi, Magistrate, first class, Mainpuri, who reconvicted the applicants Under Section 422, Penal Code and] sentenced them both to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and also to pay a fine of us. 500 or in default to undergo further; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The facts giving rise to this application as found by both the Courts below may shortly be stated as follows. The applicants Channu Lal and Mannu Lal are the sons of one Fatoh Chand. They are related to Mewa Ram and Mt. Jain Kuar and Mt. Chandan Kuar whose names will be mentioned later on in the judgment a3 shown in the following pedigree : SHIAM LAL ________________|________________ | | | Jhuman Lal Darbari Lal Mewa Lal = | Mt. Chandan Kuar | _____________ |__________________ | | | Sewa Bam Hira Lal Fateh Chanel =Mt. Jain...
Deep Chandra Vs. Ruknuddaula Shamsher Jang Nawab Mohammad Sajjad Ali K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1951All93
Seth, J.1. This Full Bench reference is the outcome of disagreement between the learned Judges composing the Bench, which heard an appeal against a decree of the Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar at Meerut, dismissing a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land alleged to have been concluded on 7-2-1942. The learned Judges were agreed on some of the points requiring determination, but not on all. The points of disagreement are the subject-matter of the questions referred to us for decision.2. The case appears to have assumed importance, not because of its own merit, but because of the learning and ability, with which it had been presented before this Court. When so much learning and ability is bestowed upon a case, which does not possess any extraordinary feature, attention is apt to be diverted to side issues, which have hardly any material bearing on the crucial points involved but which only tend to cloud the issue. In such a case, it is necessary not to lose s...
Bal Jit and ors. Vs. Chand Kiran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All7
Seth, J.1. Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, is the next presumptive reversioner to the estate of one Harbans, who died leaving behind him a widow, Mt. Lado. On 4th September 1918, Mt. Lado executed a simple mortgage of the property in suit in favour of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage, in Suit No. 1147 of 1930. Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, and his brothers then instituted a suit, being Suit No. 409 of 1931, in the Court of the Munsif of Meerut for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930 was not binding upon the reversioners of Harbans, after the death of Mt. Lado. The suit was dismissed on 8th January 1932 on the only ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 125, Limitation Act. Mt. Lado then executed a sale deed on 16th October 1948, to pay up the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930.2. The present suit was brought for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 16th October 1943, will not bind the plaintiff after th...
Mt. Sahodra Vs. Ram Baboo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All10
Malik, C.J.1. The facts are set out in our Judgment, dated 5th May 1948, (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 49). We had remitted an issue to the lower Court for a finding. The issue was as follows:'Whether the property in dispute had been transferred to any person under the provisions of Sections 24, 25, 28 or 31 or bonds had been issued by the Collector to the creditors Under Sections 30 or 31, Encumbered Estates Act, before 24th February 1943, the date on which the application Under Section 11 was filed?'2. The finding of the learned Special Judge is that the property in dispute had not been transferred to any person under the provisions of the sections mentioned in the issue. The learned Special Judge also found that bonds had not been issued by the Collector to the creditors Under Sections 80 or 31, Encumbered Estates Act, before 24th February 1943, the date on which the objector filed his objection Under Section 11.3. The landlord, applicant has filed certain objections to these findings, M...
Bishwanath Singh Vs. Jannath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All643
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a deft.'s application in revision against a decree of the Court of Small Causes at Jaunpur granted in favour of a legal practitioner in respect of his fees. There was no specific con-tract between the legal practitioner & his client. The taxable fee in the case was Rs. 516. The applicant had engaged three legal practitioners to appear & work for him. The plff. brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 153. He had already been paid Rs. 100 before the institution of the suit. The claim for Rs. 158 was based on the ground that the plff. was entitled to half the legal fee. The Court below has granted him a decree for Rs. 72 only.2. It being a case where the fee had not been privately settled between the legal practitioner & the client, the case must be governed by the second portion of Section 4, Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act (xxi [21] of 1926, which provides as follows : '...... if no such fee has been settled, a fee computedin accordance with the law for the time be...
Mt. Krishna Dei Vs. Governor-general in Council and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All1
Chandiramani, J.1. The plaintiffs, the Governor-General in Council and the Rohilkhand and Kumaon Railway through its Agent at Gorakhpur, sued Mt. Kishen Dei, defendant 1, the appellant, and Nawab Ali, defendant 2, and Jumman, defendant 3, for recovery of possession over two small plots of land marked A and B in the map attached to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff 1, Governor-General in Council, was the owner of the metre gauge railway known as the Lucknow Bareilly State Railway; that under an agreement dated 8th September 1890, plaintiff l leased the working of the aforesaid State Railway to plaintiff 2. It was said that the railway line of the aforesaid railway crossed Canning Street near Mohalla Rakabganj in the city of Lucknow and there was a level crossing at that place. In order to avoid accidents at the railway crossing, plain-tiff 1 acquired certain lands in 1895 and built an over-bridge for road traffic, as shown in the map, and handed over the bridge...
Mushtaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1949
Reported in: 1949CriLJ947
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicants Mushtaq Ahmad, Shahidey and Mursalin were convicted by a Magistrate, let class, Gonda, in a summary trial under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 and sentenced each to rjgorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. They went up in appeal, but their appeal was also dismissed.2. The allegation against the applicants was that on 25th January 1947, in the morning they were seen carrying on carts two bales of ehhinfc cloth towards Koela Basa in Nepal on the Jarwa-Eoela Basa Eoad in the district of Gonda. It is said that the scene of occurrence is 1% miles from Eoela Basa but within the district of Gonda. The applicants denied that the cloth was being taken to Nepal territory for sale. They said that it was being taken to Jarws Bazar about 4& miles away for sale. The defence was not believed.3. It has been contended in this revision that it has been impossible to find out which order has been contravened by the ...
Mushtaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All622
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicants Mushtaq Ahmad Shahidey and Mursalin were convicted by a Magistrate, 1st class Gonda, in a summary trial under Section 7, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act of 1946 and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. They went up in appeal, but their appeal was also dismissed.2. The allegation against the applicants was that on 25th January 1947, in the morning they were seen carrying on carts two bales of chhint cloth towards Koela Basa in Nepal on the Jarwa-Koela Basa Road in the district of Gonda. It is said that the scene of occurrence is 11/2 miles from Koela Basa but within the district of Gonda. The applicants denied that the cloth was being taken to Nepal territory for sale. They said that it was being taken to Jarws Bazar about 41/2 miles away for sale. The defence was not believed.3. It has been contended in this revision that it has been impossible to find out which order has been contravened by the...
Meerut Municipal Board Vs. M. Samuel and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All750
Sankar Saran, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for demolition of certain buildings and for possession over their site. There was a further prayer for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to construct a certain drain.2. The plaintiff in this case is the Municipal Board of Meerut. It is their case that they are the owners of the public road which runs from the clock tower to Akhtar Masjid in the city of Meerut, and towards the east of that road there is a Municipal drain, beyond which are situate houses Nos. 334 to 348, which belong to the defendants.3. The defence was that there was no encroachment on any portion of the public road and that the plaintiff is not entitled to have the constructions demolished. It was further alleged that the constructions were not made illegally. The sanction of the Municipal Board was deemed to have been given to the defendants under Section 180, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Furthermore, when the Municipal Board gave no...
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Puran Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1949All685
Misra, J.1. The question before the Full Bench is whether the word 'debt' in the second proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Brij Narain v. Mangala Prasad and Ors. A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 60, refers only to a simple money-debt or also to a debt secured by a mortgage. The reference became necessary because of a conflict of views on this point between the majority opinion to which expression was given by Mukerji and Boys JJ. in Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. Hoshyar Singh and Anr. : AIR1928All596 . and the decisions of the Avadh Chief Court represented by Nand Lal and Anr. v. Umrai and Ors A.I.R. (13) 1926 Oudh 321.2. The suit which gives rise to the appeal was for a declaration that a simple mortgage-deed of a house executed on 12th September 1930 jointly by Khairati Lal, defendant 1 and his son-Puran Chand, defendant 2, in favour of Puran Lal in lieu of Rs. 2000 and a decree for sale based thereon in favour of Puran Lal's successor, Mt. Janki, defendant 3 are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »