Allahabad Court August 1949 Judgments
Anjuman Islamia Through Zahur UddIn Vs. Latafat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All109
Malik, C.J.1. I have read the judgment of brother Desai and agree that this appeal should be allowed.2. The lower Court was of the opinion that Wilait Ali had executed the waqfnama dated 21st January 1917, of the six shops with the object of defeating the claim of Mahmoodi Begum. Mahmoodi Begum filed her suit No. 192 of 1920, on 1st November 1920, and it is very unlikely that Wilait Ali would have made this waqf in 1917 with the object of defeating Mahmoodi Begum's claim. Further, there is no reason why Wilait Ali should have made a waqf of only six shops with the object of defeating Mahmoodi Begum's claim when he was possessed of considerable other property. To meet this argument it was stated that Wilait Ali had made a waqf of certain other properties under two waqfnamas of 1918. Those waqfnamas have been held to be valid and no one has challenged the validity thereof. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the waqfnama executed in 1917 by Wilait Ali was not intended to take...
Tag this Judgment!Someshwar Dayal Seth Vs. Shri Dwarkadhish Ji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All61
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against a decree of a Court of Small Causes in a suit for arrears of rent. Previous to the Local Act III [3] of 1947 the defendant was paying a rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. In addition to that amount, by virtue of an agreement between the parties, the defendant was also liable for the payment of municipal taxes, that is, the house tax and the water tax, assessed upon the premises. The plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant enhancing the rent to Rs. 81 per month on 7th November 1946. The defendant did not accept the enhancement, with the result that in January 1948 the suit giving rise to this application in revision was instituted claiming a sum of Rs. 653-7-0 from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed ES. 1053 on account of rent for thirteen months at Rs. 81 per month together with Rs. 268-2-0 on account of municipal taxes. From the total figure of RS. 1321-2-0. arrived at by adding these two figures, the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Subhan and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All180
Chandiramani, J.1. The appellants Subhan, Gaddi and Bharosey Chamar, were convicted under Section 412, Penal Code, by Mr. Raja Ram Mehra, Civil and Sessions Judge, Sitapur, and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 100 on 25th April 1949. In the same ease the learned Judge convicted Matai Dhobi, and Tonri, Pasi, appellants under Section 395, Penal Code and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The prosecution case briefly was that on the night of 11th/12th April 1948, a dacoity was committed at the house of Paragi Lal, Brahman, P. W. 2, in village Musha, Police Station Kotwali, Sitapur. In this dacoity considerable property was looted and several inmates of the house, Janki, Mt. Sukhdei, Moti Lal, Mt. Mahdei and Mt. Savitri were injured. The dacoits were 15 or 16 in number. The dacoits had some electric torches with them and were armed with a country-made revolver and some lathis. A report of this occurrence was made the next...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. Kailashi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All160
Malik, C.J.1. A suit was decided by a learned Civil Judge on 23rd March 1948. The learned Judge was transferred and his successor assumed office. An application was filed before him under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for review. The only ground urged as a ground for review was the omission on the part of his predecessor to consider a patta of the year 1901. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the patta of 1901 was not taken into consideration by his predecessor and granted the application. The learned Judge has not yet decided whether the patta, even if taken into consideration, would affect the decision of the case. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1 (w), Civil P. C.2. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Civil Judge, who granted this review, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and so grant it, Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. gives the grounds on which a review application can be file...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Abdul Rashid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-30-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All201
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order under Section 6-A, Court fees Act demanding court-fees from the defendant in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that they had spent a sum of Rs. 6,500 in making improvements to the property and the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption should not be decreed without making the plaintiff liable for that amount. The Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that the defendants had made a counterclaim and should be made to pay ad valorem court fees on the sum of Rs. 6,500 which, the defendants had alleged, had been spent by them towards the improvements to the property. The learned Civil Judge accepted the report of the Chief Inspector of Stamps and held that the defendants were liable to pay ad valorem court-fees on the sum of Rs. 6,500 on the ground that the defendants had made a counter claim. An appeal against this order has been Bled by the defendant) under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Gopal Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All42
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Agra, dated 3rd May 1949, acquitting the opposite party Madanlal of an offence under Section 406, Penal Code, of which he had been convicted by the Tahsildar Magistrate of Agra on 4th November 1948. A revision against an order of acquittal can be entertained in exceptional cases only and the powers of the High Court in the case of an acquittal are very limited except where an appeal has been filed on behalf of the Provincial Government. For the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the High Court cannot, in exercise of its power of revision, convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The power of the High Court to direct a retrial in a case in which an accused person has been wrongly acquitted has, however, been recognised and a number of cases has been cited before me in which such power was exercised by this Court.2. In the case of Bhagwan Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Farman Ali Khan Vs. Mohd. Raza Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All62
Malik, C.J.1. this is a defendant's appeal against a decree passed by the learned District Judge of Allahabad in a suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. Mt. Musharraf Begum, widow of Arab All, and his daughter, Hatimi Begum, executed a deed of waqf on 12th October 1928. Farman Ali Khan, defendant-appellant, was appointed the mutwalli of the property. The income of the property made a waqf of, was said to be Rs. 2,450 out of which land revenue and Government dues had to be paid and Rs. 250 were fixed as the collection charges. A sum of Rs. 600 was set apart for expenses incurred during the Moharram and another sum of Rs. 600 during the month of Ramzan. Detailed instructions were given as to how the money was to be spent. Farman Ali and his two brothers, Waris AH and Abdul Hasan, and Abid Husain, a grandson of Arab Ali, were to get an allowance of Rs. 25 each per mensem.2. The plaintiffs, Yaqub Husain Khan and Mohammad Raza Khan, claimed that they be-longed to the Shia sect and were r...
Tag this Judgment!Alfred Stanley Barrett Vs. Mrs. Kathleen Barrett
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All193
1. The petitioner Alfred Stanley Barett filed a petition under Section 10, Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, Mrs. Kathleen Barett, on the ground of her adultery with the co-respondent Lachhmi Chand Srivastava. It was stated that the parties were married on 19th August 1937, at the Catholic Church, Cawnpore, that they were domiciled in India and that both of them were Roman Catholic Christians. The petitioner alleged that he and his wife lived together happily till 1938 when he noticed a strange change in the behaviour of his wife and that she finally left him in October 1944 from Partabgarh where the petitioner was posted. The petitioner alleged that there was an exchange of love letters between his wife, the respondent, and the co-respondent; that his wife stayed at the Royal Hotel, Lucknow, with the co-respondent on 31st August 1943; that both of them stayed at the Hotel under the name of Mr. and Mrs. S. P. Singh; that the respondent and the co-responde...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. Risal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All187
Malik, C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. There was a mortgage dated 14th March 1925, in favour of Thakur Gulab Singh, the appellant. The mortgagee brought a Suit No. 622 of 1929 on the basis of his mortgage which was decreed on 31st March 1930. He executed his decree and sold the mortgaged property, but the decree not being satisfied a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. was passed on 12th August 1932. The decree was executed more than once after 1932 but the present application for execution was filed on 6th March 1943. An objection was taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P. C. must be deemed to have been satisfied under Section 21, U. P. Debt Redemption Act (XIII [13] of 1940) and the decree was, therefore, not executable. The case of the decree-holder, however, was that the mortgage in his favour not being a first mortgage Section 21, Debt Redemption Act was not applicable. The decree-holder relied on the fact that there...
Tag this Judgment!Brijpal Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All704
1. This appeal originally came up for heating before our learned brother Ghulam Hasan J. Having regard to the importance of the question raised, and to conflict of judicial opinion on the point, ha considered it desirable that it should be decided by a Bench. The matter has accordingly been referred to us.2. The material facts lie within a short compass.3. Ram Sarup, respondent l, obtained a simple money decree against Tejpal Singh. Subsequent to the passing of this decree, a partition was effected in Tejpal Singh's family consisting of himself and his three sons, Brijpal Singh, Jitendrapal Singh and Rajendrapal Singh, the present appellants. In execution of his decree Ram Sarup applied for bringing on record the names of the appellants (Tejpal Singh's sons) and sought to attach and sell the property allotted to the latter on partition. The sons preferred an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. They contended that the property allotted to them was not liable to attachment and sale b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »