Allahabad Court January 1950 Judgments
Bohra Kishori Lal Vs. Bohra Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All403
Kidwai, J.1. On 29th February 1932, Bohra Misri Lal, acting for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, Kishen Gapal, Brij Gopal and Phul Chand, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Bohra Kishori Lal, to secure a loan of Rs. 5000, Interest was to run at 9 annas per cent. per mensem (i. e. 61/2 per cent.) compoundable with yearly rests.2. On 16th July 1940, Kishori Lal sued to recover a sum of Rs. 8,655-6 6 said by him to be due under the mortgage. Misri Lal and his sons were impleaded as defendants and so were Pearey Lal, Naonit Lal and Gajanand, who are subsequent transferees of the property mortgaged.3. The principal defence was a denial of the execution and validity of the mortgage deed. It was also pleaded that the mortgagors were agriculturists, that the plaintiff was a creditor within the meaning of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, that the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of Chap. V, Agriculturists' Relief Act and that, consequently, he was not entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All423
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge of Mirzapur dismissing an appeal of the applicant against an order of the Judicial Officer of Mirzapuc convicting the applicant Under Section 19(f), Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case was that on 25th November 1947, at about 2 P. M. on a search of of the house of the applicant in the city of Mirzapur, a spearhead was recovered from his possession. Admittedly the applicant had no licence for possessing the spearhead. He was, therefore, prosecuted Under Section 19(f), Arms Act. The only defence raised by him was that the spearhead, Ex. 1, which was recovered from his possession was not an arm within the meaning of Section 4, Arms Act. The Magistrate considered that it was an arm within the meaning of the Act and convicted him as aforesaid. In appeal several other points were raised, All his contentions were, however, overruled and the or...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. B.S. Nayyar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All549
Kidwai, J.1. The Maharaja of Kapurthala owned considerable tracts of forest lands in the Bahraich district. Some of this land in pargana Ikauna was cleared and large tenancies were created in favour of some Punjabees, who had migrated and settled down in Bahraich, some Muslims and others, including important members of the district Congress Organization. The tenants mostly reserved portions of their holdings in their own cultivation and let oat the rest to sub-tenants.2. After a time trouble arose between the tenants and their sub-tenants which resulted in the forcible occupation of land, riot, murder and other crimes. The Punjabee and Muslim tenants felt that these troubles were engineered by Pandit Janardan Prasad, a so-called Communist, and Pandit Sobha Ram, the Secretary of the Ikauna Congress Committee. They began to agitate for action and expressed their readiness to offer concessions to the subtenants, and were prepared to accept only one third of the produce instead of a half o...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Vs. Basdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All437
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising oat of a suit brought by him in the Court of the Munsif, Muttra, in which the relief claimed by him was a declaration that he was entitled to the allotment of three jajmans which had fallen to the share of the defendant by the decree of a previous partition suit, for recovery of Rs. 200/-as the approximate profit which the defendant had derived during one year from those jajmans and for future damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per year. The appeal raises an interesting point of law. The facts are simple.2. Narain, plaintiff, appellant, Basdeo, defendant-respondent, and one Girraj are three brothers who are Chaubey by caste and are residents of Muttra. Their profession is Birt jajmani. In 1933 Narain and Basdeo brought a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge against Girraj for the partition of their share of the property. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 22nd December 1942. An Amin was deputed to divide the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Bidha Ram and ors. Vs. Chhidda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All430
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. On 3rd January 1936, the plaintiffs appellants executed ostensibly a deed of sale in favour of the defendant-respondent in respect of a house situated in the city of Agra for a sum of Rs. 150 only. Towards the end of this deed there was the following condition to the sale:'There is one important condition which has been agreed to between the parties. If within the period of three years I, the vendor, pay Rs. 150 in a lump sum to the vendee I shall be entitled to the house and at my own expense I shall cause a sale-deed to be executed in my favour by the vendee. Otherwise after the expiry of the period fixed above this deed of sale will become a deed of absolute sale. I have, therefore, executed this deed of conditional sale providing for a period of three years in favour of the vendee.' 2. On the same date, the appellant executed a rent deed also in favour of the defendant, responde...
Tag this Judgment!Pheru Ahir and anr. Vs. Mangru Gandaria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All449
Seth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Civil Judge of Azamgarh allowing an appeal and directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, by which the learned Judge means the revenue Court. He has found that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs alleging that they were tenants of the plots in dispute and that the defendants have forcibly taken possession of the same and were occupying them as trespassers. On these allegations the plaintiffs claimed possession of the plots and Rs. 40 by way of damages.3. The lower appellate Court has expressed the view that the plaintiffs could get the relief asked for by means of a suit in the revenue Court which they could have brought either under Section 59,180 or 182, U. P. Tenancy Act. It is to be noted that the suit was brought before Sections 180 and 183 were amended by Act X [10] of 1947. The allegations contained in the plaint are not covered by ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ayub and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All215
Wali Ullah, J.1. I agree to the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother. In view of the elaborate arguments addressed to us on certain aspects of the case and in view of the fact that the case was referred by a learned single Judge to a Bench of two Judges, I wish to add a few observations of my own.2. On the evidence in the case it is clear that the authorities of the Madarsa known as Madarsa Miftahu-1Ulum have made certain new constructions. The town of Mau was till recently a notified area. Shri Girish Chandra, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mohammadabad was the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee. Soon after the constructions had been completed, a tussle appears to have ensued between the Madarsa authorities on the one hand and those who were interested in the Ram Lila and Bharat Milap on the other. I have no doubt in my mind that at first an attempt was made to have a portion of the new constructions demolished under the orders of the Notified Area authorities. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Prasad Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All312
ORDERChandiramani, J.1. The applicant Bishambhar Prasad was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class, Bahraich, under Section 161, Penal Code for accepting a bribe of Rs. 15 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 100. His appeal against his conviction and sentence was also dismissed. 2. On behalf of the applicant his learned Counsel has urged that accepting the finding of the learned appellate Court, no offence under Section 161, Penal Code has been made out. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and I am satisfied that this application must be allowed. 3. The prosecution case briefly was that on 12-1-1949, at about 11 A.M. in front of the bungalow of the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, the applicant accepted from one Baba Din a bribe of Rs. 15 in order to give him an extract from the khasra. The learned Appellate Court in its judgment says : 'It may be that Baba Din and Shri Tulshi Ram were anxious to get the patwari arrested. It is also...
Tag this Judgment!Narmada Prasad Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All451
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is a revision by Sardar Narmada Prasad Singh in connection with a searth which took place at his house on 27th october 1949.2. The facts are that the District Magistrate of Rewa, Vindhya Pradesh, issued a searchwarrant under s. 96, Criminal P.C. This warrantwas endorsed by the Regional Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh. It was brought to the District Magistrate of Allahabad who, in his turn endorsed it forwardint the same to the Senior Superintendent of police, Allahabad. The warrant was for the search of the premises of the aplicant in connection with an alleged offence under s. 409,Penal Code, committed by him in Vindhya Pradesh. Thereupon, the house of the applicant was searched in the presence of a magistrate of Allahabad, a deputy Superintendent of Police of these provinces and the Superintendent of Policeof Vindhya Pradesh and certain documents belongingto the applicant were seized and handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa.These documents have be...
Tag this Judgment!Azhar HasnaIn Vs. Muazzam HasnaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All435
1. This is an appeal by a claimant Under Section 11, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act against an order rejecting his claim on the ground that it did not amount to a claim to 'the property' mentioned in the landlord's application under that Act.2. From the written claim presented by the appellant on 8th August 1944, before the Special Judge it appears that the landlord-applicant was the mutwalli of the property in question under a deed of wakf-alal-aulad dated 2nd Jane 1915, and that the appellant was a beneficiary under the same. Having learnt that this property had been wrongly included in the schedule of properties of the landlord, the appellant filed the claim giving rise to the present appeal seeking the exemption of that property from attachment and sale in satisfaction of the landlord's debts.The learned Special Judge, holding that the claim did not amount to a 'claim to the property mentioned in such notice,' rejected the same without going into the merits.3. A preliminary objection...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »