Allahabad Court August 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.
Farid Ahmad and ors. Vs. Government of United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All43
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal.2. The United Provinces Government filed a suit for possession of a piece of land described at the foot of the plaint, which, it is now admitted, is a part of a bigger plot No. 73 having an area of 3.73 acres and situate in Mohalla Naugaza in Muttra. The claim on behalf of the plaintiff is based on the ground that the land in suit had at one time vested in the Cantonment Board and on 23rd December 1881, the Cantonment Board had transferred this land along with other land to the civil authorities. Not much is known about the ancient history of this land except this that there are certain very old graves on this land, and at the time of the inspection the learned Civil Judge found one of the graves having an inscription of 11th century Hijri. There was a long grave on the spot known as 'Naugaza' and it is mentioned in one of the judgments that it was supposed to be the grave of one of the old giants in pre historic days who used to attain height...
Manna Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All205
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The opposite-parties filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain property alleging that the property had been mortgaged with the applicants and the entire money had been paid off from the usufruct of the property. The applicants raised an objection that the suit was not triable by the civil Court but it should have been filed before the revenue Court. This preliminary issue of jurisdiction was tried by the learned munsif, the trial Court, and be has come to the conclusion that he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is against this decision that the applicants have now come up in revision.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies because that decision on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction does not amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P. C. This contention is sound and is supported by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Budhu Lal v. Mewa Ram, 43 ALL. 564: (A. I. R. (8) 1921 AL...
Padam Kumar JaIn Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All132
ORDERHarish Chander, J.1. This is an application of one Padam Kumar Jain under Section 491, Criminal P. C., calling in question the legality of his detention in the District Jail at Agra by virtue of an order of detention passed by the U. P. Government under Section 3, U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947, on the ground that the grounds of detention furnished to him under Section 5 of that Act are vague and indefinite and are not sufficient to enable him to make a proper representation to the Government as contemplated by that section.2. In the case of Rex v. Durga Das, 1948 A. L. J. 491: (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148), a Full Bench of this Court has held that where the ground and particulars supplied to the detenu under Section 5 of the Act are indefinite or incomplete and do not convey sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make a representation that the detaining authority was wrong in its belief that his detention was necessary in the interest of th...
Sheetal Baksh Singh and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All184
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The three applicants Sheetla Baksh Singh, Nanhey Singh and Nanku were bound over Under Section 109 (a), Criminal P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, district Sitapur, on 28th February 1949. Five other persons, Debi, Hulasi, Mulhey, Nafadin and Jagannath, were also bound over. All these eight persons went up in appeal, but their appeal was dismissed. Only the three applicants have come up in revision and stated that oil the facts proved the order Under Section 109 (a), Criminal P. C., is not justified. I have heard the learned counsel and am satisfied that the order passed is illegal.2. The prosecution case briefly was that the police of Sidhauli were informed by Ratnu chaukidar on 26th September 1948, that some 10 or 12 strangers had collected at the taina of Nasrullah Shah in village Bari and it was feared that some incident might take place. It was mentioned that these people were drunk. Sub-Inspector Amrit Singh accompanied by some constables a...
Lal Somnath Singh and ors. Vs. Ambika Prasad Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All121
Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the order of the lower Court dismissing their suit for possession of certain properties as against defendants 1 to 8 and 29 to 31. The plaintiffs had claimed the properties as the reversionary heirs of Lal Bishwanath Singh who died on 26/27th April 1872. After the death of his widow, Mt. Sheobachan Kuer, on 7th October 1926, the suit wag filed on the last date of limitation, i. e., 6th October 1938.2. The pedigree of the family is printed at page 7 and there is no dispute as regards the pedigree. On the death of Mt. Sheobachan Kuer, Lal Shanker Nath Singh, who was the nearest collateral of Lal Bishwanath Singh, became his legal heir. The suit was filed by Somnath Singh, son of Lal Shanker Nath Singh, the other two plaintiffs being his cousins to whom the plaintiff had agreed to give a portion of the property.3. The property is divided into six schedules. The appeal relates only to schedules A and D, as the plaintiffs entered into compr...
Mt. Hajira Begum Vs. Hamid HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All45
Malik, C.J.1. One Hamid Husain filed an application under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act on 23rd July 1935. The papers were in due course sent to the Special Judge, first grade, Pilibhit, and a notice setting out the list of properties was published in the Provincial Gazette on 7th November 1936. No objections under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act were filed and on 12th August 1911, the Special Judge determined all the claims under Section 14, Encumbered Estates Act. The papers were in due course sent to the Collector for liquidation of the debts and a liquidation award was drawn up on 24th August 1943, by an officer appointed for the purpose. Hamid Husain, however, filed an appeal against this award but the appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 7th December 1945, and on 18th April 1946, the final award was passed. Under this award certain bonds were to be issued to the secured creditors and certain items of property were to be transferred to certain others. Hamid Husain...
Ram Gulam and anr. Vs. Government of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All206
ORDERSeth, J.1. The suit giving rise to this application in revision was instituted by the plaintiffs applicants against the Government of United Provinces for the recovery of certain ornaments, and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 599.4/- of their price.2. These ornaments were stolen from the house of the plaintiffs. They were recovered from another house, on a search made by the police and seized as stolen property, in exercise of powers conferred in that behalf by the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were produced as exhibits at the trial of those, who were prosecuted in connection with the theft. They were accordingly kept in the Collectorate Malkhana, from where they were again stolen, and are now untraceable. The plaintiffs applied unsuccessfully to the Magistrate for an order for their restoration to them and then instituted the present suit, which was dismissed on the finding that the Government was not liable to compensate the plaintiffs.3. It appears that the claim ...
Gauri Shanker Lal Vs. Tulshi Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All47
Mootham, J.1. In my opinion this appeal must be dismissed.2. The relevant fasts can be stated very-shortly. Three persons mortgaged sixteen villages to the appellant to secure an advance. In 1932 the appellant obtained a mortgage decree, but before any steps were taken to execute that decree the Co-operative Bank obtained a simple money decree against one of the mortgagors and in execution of that decree the interest of that mortgagor in eight of these sixteen villages was sold. The other two mortgagors (who are the present respondents) then applied under Section 8,. United Provinces Debt Redemption Act, 1940, for amendment of the mortgage decree. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the mortgagors' liability for the repayment of the advance had, by virtue of the sale in execution of the decree obtained by the Co-operative Bank, been transferred to another person, and that therefore there was no loan within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of that Act. There...
Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Kali Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All108
Chandiramani, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal against the appellate decree of Mr. Harish Chandra Asthana, Civil Judge, Lucknow, dated 20th July 1949.2. The plaintiff alleged, the defendants appellants to be his tenants on a monthly basis at the rent of Rs. 17-8-0 per month. He stated that the tenancy commenced on 9th of each calendar month. On 17th December 1948 the plaintiff gave to the appellants a notice to vacate on 8th January 1949. On 30th November 1948 the plain, tiff had previously applied to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit for ejectment. This permission was granted on 4th January 1949. Thereafter a suit was instituted for recovery of arrears of rent for 5 months and for ejectment. It was contended in the trial Court that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent and that the permission obtained for filing the suit was not valid. The learned trial Court held that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent, but held that the permission ...
Mt. Ram Dei Vs. Mt. Gyorsi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All76
1. The answer of the Full Bench is to the effect that the self, acquired property of a Hindu father which his sons, who were joint with him, got on his death is in their hands joint family property and as between the sons and their descendants it is subject to all the incidents of a coparcenary. In our order of reference dated 12th April 1948, we held that Mt. Ram Dei defendant, had neither a right of residence nor the right of maintenance in the property which was the subject-matter of transfer by Ram Kumar to plaintiffs 1 and 2. This appeal must, therefore, fail on both the grounds urged before the Bench at the time of the hearring in 1943.2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, now seeks further to challenge the sale made by Ram Kumar in 1940 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 on the ground that it was not supported by legal necessity or by any antecedent debt. We are somewhat disinclined to permit fresh contentions being raised at this stage of the case. We prefer, however,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »