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.
Central Bank of India Vs. L. Narendrapal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All52
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a defendant's application arising out of a suit under Section 5 (4), U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, III [3] of 1947. The premises were let to the defendant Bank by a registered lease some time in the year 1943 at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The plaintiff claimed that the municipal assessment of the premises, on the relevant date in the year 1942, was Rs. 106-1-0 and that the reasonable rent therefore came to an amount in the neighbourhood of RS. 133. He alleged that even this was an inadequate rent and brought a suit under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of the rent at the rate of Rs. 200 a month. The suit was thus in effect a suit for enhancement on the ground that the reasonable rent was inadequate. It may be pointed out that before the institution of the suit the plaintiff had given a notice to the defendant enhancing rent to Rs. 200.2. The Court below has fixed the rent at Rs. 132-9-S per month, which is .the reasonable rent according t...
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Brij Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All55
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is a revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Court Fees Act. A suit was brought for maintenance by a widow (sic) under forma pauperis and no court-fee was paid. The defendant husband appealed to the lower appellate Court. He paid court-fee on the amount payable for one year to the plaintiff in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(ii)(a). The Stamp authorities objected to this amount of court fee and claimed that court, fee was payable upon ten times that amount, their contention being that the proviso was not applicable when the appeal was filed by a male person. There is no separate provision for the assessment of court-fee payable in appeals arising out of such suits as distinct from the article providing for the payment of court-fees in the suit in such cases. There is, however, Section 2(iv) according to which 'suit' includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit. Applying the aforesaid definition of suit, if we substitute 'fi...
Shafiq-ud-dIn Vs. Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All60
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order arising out of a case under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The Court of first instance granted the application for redemption. The appellate Court has agreed with the Court of first instance on almost every point except on the question of limitation and having found that the application was barred by limitation has dismissed it. The plaintiff-applicant applies in revision against the order of the lower appellate Court.2. The argument put forward by the learned counsel before me is different from the argument that was put forward before the lower appellate Court, In the lower appellate Court it was argued that limitation was saved by a certain acknowledgment made by a Hindu widow. The defendants are the reversioners. The lower appellate Court overruled this contention on the authority of the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee reported in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal, 35 ALL. 227 : ...
H.K. Lodhi Vs. L. Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All100
Agarwala, J.1. These are two applications in revision by one H.K. Lodhi against Shyam Lal. The facts briefly stated are these.2. The Political Agent in Bhopal issued two warrants on 8th February 1946 for the arrest of the opposite party and addressed one of them to the District Magistrate of Mathura and another to the District Magistrate of Agra. The warrants stated that the opposite party had committed or is supposed to have committed, within the limits of Bhopal, an offence against the laws of the said State and that the offence charged against the opposite party is one which, if committed in British India, would have constituted an offence under Section 420, Penal Code and that the opposite party should, therefore, be arrested under Section 7, Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act, 1903, and removed to Bhopal to be deliver, ed to the Chief Justice, High Court, Bhopal. In pursuance of this warrant, the opposite party was arrested at Mathura on 24th September 1946. An application f...
Sheodan Singh Vs. Ramesh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All53
Wanchoo, J.1. This is an appeal by Sheodan Singh against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Etah by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsif of Etah, dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff. The circumstances in which the suit was brought by Sheodan Singh were these:2. One, Lokan Singh, made a mortgage on 18th August 1928, for a sum of Rs. 100, in favour of Prithi Raj Singh. On 13th December 1928, another mortgage for Rs. 100 was executed by Tara Singh and others also in favour of the same Prithi Raj Singh. Later, on 9th November 1929, the mortgagors of both the mortgage deeds jointly executed a sale deed of the equity of redemption in favour of Sheodan Singh, the plaintiff appellant, and the defendant-respondents or their predecessors in interest. Prithi Raj Singh filed a suit against his mortgagors as well as the transferees, and got a decree on the basis of his mortgage deeds on 4th December 1933. Thereafter, Sheodan Singh made an application u...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Gokaran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All87
Seth, J.1. This second appeal from order raises a question of law, which does not appear to be covered by any authority.2. Bhola Singh and his son, Hakim Singh, having mortgaged certain properties, sold the equity of redemption of a moiety share in one of the items of property to one Subedar Singh. Mohan Lal obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage in the year 1932 against Bhola Singh and his son, Hakim Singh, without impleading Subedar Singh as a defendant. Bhola Singh and his two sons applied for relief under the Encumbered Estates Act in the year 1936, and Mohan Lal, having set up a claim in those proceedings, under the mortgage decree, obtained a fresh decree under the Act in the year 1939. Subedar Singh sold the property purchased by him from Bhola Singh to Gokaran Singh in the year 1940. In 1942 Gokaran Singh filed an objection under S. 11, claiming that the property purchased by him was not liable for the payment of the debts of the applicants under the Encumbered Estates ...
Mst. Lakshmi Devi Vs. Mt. Tara Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All104
Kidwai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration that a motor lorry which had been: attached in pursuance of their decree by respondents 1, 5 (now dead and represented by respondent 1) and 6 did not belong to her husband, Thakur Sat Parsan Singh taluqdar of Resi, respondent 2, but that it belonged to her. She had filed objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., but they were dismissed and consequently a suit for declaration was brought. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the case was instituted, dismissed the suit. The learned Civil Judge of Sultanpur held the appeal filed in his Court to be time barred and dismissed it, This appeal is from the decree of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the appeal as times barred.2. The circumstances relating to the filing of the appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Sultanpur are that limitation was expiring on 5th September 1942. The appeal was not filed in, Court on that date but at 9 p. m. t...
Mt. Sajida Khatoon Vs. M.B. Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All56
Seth, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 6A, U. P. Court-fees Act, against an order of the Court below requiring her to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 1087-8-0 on a sum of Rs. 13,200.2. The plaintiff appellant is the wife of the defendant. At the time of her marriage the defendant bound himself by an agreement to pay her maintenance allowance, which was described as 'kharch-i-pandan' in the agreement, in case the defendant married another wife during the plaintiff's lifetime. This maintenance allowance was to be paid at a rate which was to be half the amount of the salary payable to the defendant for the time being. The defendant a Government servant. The defendant remarried during the plaintiff's lifetime, and as a consequence of it, the plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming to recover a sum of RS. 23,000 as the balance of her dower, and Rs. 9,000 as the arrears of kharch-i-pandan, in all a sum of RS. 32,000 She paid ad valorem court-fee on this sum of Rs. 32...
Bhagwant Kishore and anr. Vs. Bishambhar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All54
Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim put forward in insolvency proceedings. The insolvent is Madan Lal. The claimants are his sons, Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore. The claim relates to the offerings made at a shrine called Kuawala. A sum of Rs. 1300 was in the hands of a receiver in respect of the offerings for a particular period. It should be noted that the receiver was not the receiver in insolvency but was a receiver appointed in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The official receiver desired this amount to be paid to him claiming it to belong to the estate of the insolvent Madan Lal. Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore objected claiming that the offerings belonged to them. Both the Courts below have held that the offerings formed part of the estate of the insolvent and have, therefore, rejected the claim of Bhagwant Kishore and Chandar Kishore, who have come up in appeal to this Court.2. The brief history of the right to receive the offerings at the shr...
Rex Vs. AlimuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All77
Wanchoo, J.1. This is a revision by the Provincial Government against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Banaras by which he dropped the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B, Penal Code against the five opposite parties and, instead, substituted a charge under Section 109, Penal Code.2. The facts which led to the prosecution of the opposite parties may be narrated here briefly. The Deputy Town Rationing Officer (Cloth), Banaras, Shri P. D. Dhoondiyal while inspecting the special permits cloth shop of one Ram Chander in Banaras city on 20th April 1946 discovered that a cloth permit No. 6996 issued from permit book No. 170 was forged inasmuch as the signature which purported to be his was not really in his handwriting. An enquiry then started for permit book no. 170 which had been in the custody of Jagdish Prasad opposite-party and it was found that it was missing from the office. It was also found that thirteen permits had been issued from this book which were all forged, b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »