Allahabad Court September 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.
Sir Iqbal Ahmad Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All162
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. These are two criminal miscellaneous cases arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1948 in which the applicants in Criminal Misc. case No. 941 of 1949 have appealed against their convictions and the sentences of transportation for life that have been passed upon them. In their application they say that they have engaged Sir Iqbal Ahmad to argue their appeal and pray that permission be accorded to him to appear on their behalf in this Court. The other case--criminal Misc. case No. 940 of 1949--arises out of an application by Sir Iqbal Ahmad himself praying for the permission of this Court to argue the said appeal on behalf of the appellants.2. Sir Iqbal Ahmad was an advocate of the Allahabad High Court and was later appointed a Puisne Judge of that Court. In or about the year 1933, on his appointment as a Puisne Judge of that Court he gave an undertaking not to practice in the Court or in the Courts subordinate thereto after his retirement. He continued to wo...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Juman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All266
ORDERDesai, J.1.This is rather an unfortunate case because the learned Sessions Judge who decided the appeal has done so on mere surmises and thereby caused injustice to the applicant. The applicant paid Rs. 400 to the opposite party Jumman in order to buy from him a sewing machine at Calcutta. But the opposite party neither bought the machine nor returned the money to the applicant. The applicant thereupon prosecuted him under Section 406 and succeeded in the trial Court but not in the Sessions Court. The defence of the opposite party in both the Courts was that the applicant had paid the money not to him but to one Abdul Majid and he even led evidence to prove this. But it has been found by both the Courts that the money was paid to the opposite party. On this finding he should have been convicted because he has not bought the machine and has misappropriated the money. His denial of the receipt of the money is nothing but misappropriation. The learned Sessions Judge, however, made ou...
Chitto Adhikari Vs. Vidya Bhushan Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1949
Reported in: AIR1952All455
ORDERDesai, J. 1. The opposite party filed a complaintunder Section 500, Penal Code, against the applicantin the Court of the City Magistrate of Banaras,who, without issuing a process, dismissed it on28th June 1947 on the ground that it was toovague, but, at the same time, expressly left itopen to the opposite party to file a fresh complaint.Accordingly on 2nd september 1947 hefiled a fresh complaint on the same facts and theCity Magistrate transferred it for trial to theCourt of Mr. J. D. Shah. Mr. J. D. Shah againdismissed the complaint on 19th September 1947without issuing a process and without going intothe merits. His order was erroneous on the faceof it and the opposite party got it set aside bythe learned Sessions Judge in revision. Thecomplaint went back to Mr. Shah for disposalbut it was transferred from his Court, to thatof Mr. M. M. Krishana. Mr. Krishana fixed 8thJuly 1948, for hearing evidence under Section 202,Criminal P. C. On that date the opposite partywas absent and t...
Keshar Singh and ors. Vs. Rex Through Prem Ballabh Joshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All157
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaun, with the recommendation that the conviction of Keshar Singh, etc., Under Section 447, Penal Code, by a Magistrate be quashed, It has been found by the Magistrate, the District Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Prem Ballabh Joshi and Gauri Datt were in possession of a field, that Keshar Singh, etc. had absolutely no connection with it and that they forcibly ploughed it in spite of the protests of Prem Ballabh. The learned Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate did not consider whether the facts made out an offence Under Section 447, Penal Code or not. They took it for granted that the offence was made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, went into the question in detail and was of the opinion that no offence was made out because it was not proved that the intention of Keshar Singh, etc. in committing trespass upon the field was to commit an offence or intimidate...
Ram Saran Singh and anr. Vs. Prithipal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All224
V. Bhargava, J.1. A simple money decree was obtained on 27th April 1928 by two persons, Bhairon Baksh Singh and Sukhraj Singh against one Mahip Singh. The appellants in this appeal are the successors-in-interest of the decree-holders. Bhairon Baksh Singh and Sukhraj Singh and the respondent is the objector-judgment-debtor, being the grandson and successor-in-interest of Mahip Singh, the original judgment-debtor. In this execution, the decree-holders sought to realise the money by attachment and sale of certain property which the respondent claimed was his personal property and was net liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against Mahip Singh. The respondent claimed his personal ownership of the property under a deed of gift executed on 37th April 1925 in his favour by Mahip Singh. This deed of gift wag followed by a declaratory suit in which the respondent asked for a declaration that the property was his and the defendant was Mahip Singh. That suit was compromised a...
Rex Vs. Daya Shankar Jaitly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All167
Agarwala, J.1. This is reference, under Section 307, Criminal P. C., by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Kanpur. Daya Shankar Jaitly, the opposite party, was tried with the aid of a jury for an offence under Section 477A, Penal Code, and, in the alternative, for an offence under Section 408, Penal Code. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both the charges. As the learned Sessions Judge did not agree with the verdict of the jury, he made a reference to this Court.2. The prosecution case briefly put was as follows: The accused Daya Shanker Jaitly was employed as a cashier in the office of the Garrison Engineer at Kanpur. As a cashier, it was his duty to write the cash book showing correctly the state of income and expenditure from day to day. He used to beep the cash book with him and also handled the cash. He made false en. tries in the cash book showing inflated amounts of expenditure, whereas in fact smaller amounts were spent or no amount at all. In this way, he comm...
Baij Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Faqirey Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All190
V. Bhargava, J.1. These two connected second civil appeals arise out of two separate Suits Nos. 60 of 1943 and 61 of 1943 instituted in the Court of Munsif, East Hardoi for pre-emption of a sale-deed dated 23rd February 1942 executed by two persons, Becha Singh and Chotta Singh in favour of four persons, Anant Ram, Dhani Ram, Hira Lal and Mt. Gaya Kuer. In Suit No. 60 of 1943, the right of pre-emption was claimed by the appellants of these two appeals. In Suit no. 61 of 1943 the right of pre-emption was claimed by respondents 1 and 2, Faqirey Singh and Mang Din. It appears that the appellants and these two respondents had equal and concurrent rights of pre-emption. The trial Court held that Faqirey and Mang Din were estopped from pre-empting the sale on the ground of acquiescence and only the appellants were entitled to a decree for pre-emption. The lower appellate Court differed from the trial Court and held that Faqirey Singh and Mang Din were not estopped from claiming the preemptio...
Jhagroo Khan Vs. Mohd. Ishaq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All200
V. Bhargava, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents in respect of a permanent lease executed by respondent 3 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 on 1st October 1942.2. The pre-emption was sought on the allegation that the document mentioned above was in fact not a lease but either a sale of under-proprietary rights or a sale-deed creating under-proprietary rights in favour of strangers in the village while the appellant being a member of the under-proprietary village community had preferential right. The suit for pre-emption was decreed by the trial Court on a finding that the document in suit, though not a transfer of under-proprietary rights, amounted to a transfer of heritable and transferable tenure and such a deed could be the subject-matter of pre-emption. The lower appellate Court held that since the deed did not create or transfer under-proprietary right it could not be subjected to pre-emp...
Chand Shankar Vs. Bohre Sukh Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1951All383
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor to a decree passed against him on 31-10-1945 which entitles the decree-holder respondent to evict him (the judgment-debtor, appellant) from a house, by putting the decree in execution, if he (the judgment-debtor) fails to vacate it by 31-12 1946. The suit which resulted in the decree, was instituted on 7-10-1944, with the permission of the District Magistrate which was perhaps necessary to maintain the suit because of certain control orders, then in force.2. The judgment-debtor failed to vacate the house by 31-12-1946, and so the decree-holder put the decree in execution on 11-1-1947. Before the decree-holder could succeed in evicting the judgment, debtor the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III [3] of 1947) came into force, with retrospective effect from 1-10-1946. Section 14 of the Act provides:'No decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the date of commencement of this Act shall, ...
Md. Saadat Ali Khan Vs. Mt. Badala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950All182
Chandiramani, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the decree of Mr. P. K. Kaul, District Judge, Barabanki, dated 16th May 1944.2. The plaintiff zamindar alleged that the defendant Mt. Badala was his tenant at the annual rate of Rs. 74-6-0 and that some of the rent for 1346 and 1347 Fasli as shown in the plaint was in arrears. Mt. Badala pleaded that she was a tenant at the rate of RS. 70 per year, but in 1344F. the Revising Officer had reduced the rent to RS. 52-8-0 and that she was not liable to pay at a higher rate. She also pleaded that the suit for 1346F. was time-barred.3. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there was a new contract between Mt. Badala and the plaintiff in 1345F. and that the rent was RS. 74-6-0 per year. It also held that the rent for the whole 1347F. at the rate of Rs. 74-6-0 was due and that for 1346F. the instalment of rent which fell due on 15th May 1939 alone amounting to RS. 18-9-6 is within limitation. Accordingly the suit was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »