Allahabad Court October 1950 Judgments
Jagannath Vs. United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All443
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application forspecial leave to appeal against an order of theTribunal of the Development Board of Kanpur.Along with the application for special leavememorandum of appeal was also field but on acourt fee stamp of Rs. 3-12 only. The StampReporter reported that the court fee on thememorandum of appeal was insufficient byRs. 878.2-0, according to the valuation 'if specialleave to appeal is granted by the Court.' 2. We granted special leave to appeal to theapplicant on 30.10-1950. After we had granted theleave, Mr. S. N. Sahai, learned counsel for theappellant, prayed that time may be given to himfor making good the deficiency on the memorandumof appeal. In view of the recent Full Benchdecision of this Court, In the matter of the applicationof Wajid Ali v. Isar Bano, (A. I. R. (38)1951 ALL. 64 F. B.), we thought that the applicantshould give sufficient reasons why he did notfile the memorandum of appeal with sufficientcourt-fee stamps. Learned counsel asked for t...
Tag this Judgment!Abhey Ram Vs. Tilka and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All76
Malik, C.J.1. Two questions stated below have been referred to this Bench in the following circumstances.2. A suit for pre-emption was brought by six persons. It is not denied that five of them were co-sharers who had a right to pre-empt the sale on all material dates. Plaintiff 6, Malkhan, had refused to purchase the property when it was offered to him. He filed an application on 11-1-1946, to the effect that the property had been sold after he had refused to purchase the same, that he did not, therefore, wish to proceed with the suit, that his name might be removed from She array of plaintiffs and that the suit might be dismissed. Malkhan came into the witness-box and affirmed the application just mentioned.3. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the other plaintiffs having joined Malkhan as a co-plaintiff had lost their right to pre-empt the sale by reason of the provisions of Section 21, Agra Pre-emption Act, and the suit must, therefore, fail. He relied on a de...
Tag this Judgment!Pirthi Pal Vs. Mt. Kalpoo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All190
Chandiramani, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the appellate decree of Shri G. C. Sinha, Civil Judge, Sultanpur, dated 29.11.1945. 2. The plaintiff Pirthi Pal sued for recovery of possession of certain zamindari property which belonged to two brothers, Karia and Jagmohan, sons of Nanku. Jagmohan died more than 20 years before the date of suit and apparently after his death the name of Mt. Patraji, who was his widow, was mutated in the village papers. At that time both Karia and his wife Mt. Ramraji were in Burma. Karia returned after his brother's death. When Karia himself died, the name of his widow, Mt. Ramraji, was mutated to his share. When she died in June 1943, Mt, Patraji obtained mutation in her favour in respect of that share also. 3. The plaintiff then filed the present suit saying that both Jagmohan and Karia formed a joint Hindu family, that on Jagmohan's death the name of Mt. Patraji was entered to his share by way of consolation, that in fact Karia remain...
Tag this Judgment!Khumani Vs. Saktey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All579
Kidwai, J. Khumani appellant occupied a house belonging to Saktey Lal on rent. A sum of Rs. 3/4/- was the monthly rent reserved & the period of tenancy began from the 6th of every month. It appears that rent fell into arrears & on 16-1-1947, the plff. sent a notice as required by Section 3 (a), Control of Rent & Eviction Act, calling upon the tenant to pay the rent due within one month of the service upon him of the notice of demand. The rent stated in the notice was Rs. 19/8/-, being the rent due from the period commencing on 6-7 1946. In reply to this notice the tenant sent only a sum of Rs. 16/4/- which the landlord refused to accept. Subsequently, on 20-3-1947, the landlord sent a notice which has wrongly been described in the judgment of the lower appellate Court as a notice of demand but is in fact only a notice terminating the tenancy & asking the deft, to vacate the house within 15 days. After this notice had been sent, the tenant again remitted Rs. 22/4/- for the rent but this...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Ojha and anr. Vs. Mt. Jotia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All605
Wali Ullah, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 6, U.P. Court fees Act filed by the defts. & it is directed against an order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 2-6-1948, directing the appellants to pay the court, fee on the valuation of the appeal.2. It appears that a suit for maintenance was instituted by one Mt. Jotia against the defts.-appellants. She was allowed to sue in forma pauperis. She was successful in the Court of first instance. Against the decree passed by the Court of first instance, the appellants went up in appeal to the lower appellate Court. A question of the sufficiency of court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal arose on the report of the Inspector of Stamps. The learned Judge, who was seised of the appeal, decided that the report of the Inspector of Stamps was correct. He accepted it and ordered the appellants to pay court fee according to the value of the appeal. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge, the appellants have now come up in appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishore Tandon Vs. Shayaur Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All155
Wali Ullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the judgment-debtor under Sections 8 and 9, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, (XIII [13] of 1940) for amendment of a preliminary decree for sale passed in a mortgage suit. The mortgage was executed by Shyam Sunder Lal in favour of the appellant Ram Kishore Tandon in respect of an advance of Rs. 1428 at six per cent. interest compoundable half yearly. The hypothecated property consisted of two houses in the city of Gonda and five tenancy groves in an agricultural village called Gird Gonda. Out of the mortgage money only a sum of Rs. 339 was paid in cash at the time of the execution of the mortgage the balance of the consideration was set off against sums due under six earlier mortgage deeds in respect of the case property executed by the same mortgagor in the name of one Sarju Prasad, grand-father of Ram Kishore Tandon, the mortgagee in the deed of 30-3-1927. It is not disputed that the interest of the mortgagee under the earlie...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Shankar Vs. United Provinces and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All173
Kidwai, J. 1. Ram Shanker appellant and Bishun Narian respondent 8 obtained a decree for Rs. 11,013-10-0 against Sharif Ahmad and others, respondents 2 to 7, from the Court of the Special Judge, II Grade of Hardoi. The debtors preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed of fay an order dated 13-5-1939. The appeal was partly allowed and the liability was reduced to Rs. 4,972.9.0. The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs. The appeal had been preferred as a pauper appeal but the attention of the appellate Court does not seem to have been directed to Order 33, Rule 10, Civil P. C., and no order was passed as to who should be made liable to pay the court-fee. On 21-7-1943, the Court was moved by the Deputy Commissioner of Hardoi to make the calculation of court-fee and to pass an order under Order 33, Rule 10, Civil P. C. Thereupon the Court passed an order making the creditors who were respondents in that case liable to pay the court fee.2. The Deputy Commissioner later app...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Singh and anr. Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All426
ORDERKidwai, J. 1. Laiq Singh and Teja Singh executed a mortgage deed in favour of Gillu Mal to secure a loan of Rs. 470 9 0. The property mortgaged consisted of some plots in village Hardoi. The whole family of Laiq Singh and Teja Singh, who was nephew of Laiq Singh, became extirct and Mt. Parbati, widow of Teja Singh, entered into possession of his property. On 7-11-1926, Mt. Parbati made a gift of some property to her daughter's son, Baijnath. On 25-11 1941, Baijnath, along with one Puttu, who claimed to be the sister's son of Teja Singh and as such an heir of Teja Singh, made an application under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Belief Act to the Revenue Court at Hardoi. They claimed that they were the legal representatives of the original mortgagors and that the entire mortgage money had been paid off out of the usufruct of the property. They accordingly prayed for a decree for redemption without payment. 2. The trial Court found that the applicants were the legal representatives...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Rai Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All287
V. Bhargava, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of one single suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Belief Act for accounts in respect of a mortgage which was executed on 11-7-1873, by one Sm. Rupa Kunwar in favour of one Newaj Rai. The appellant in both these appeals is the successor in interest of Newaj Rai, the mortgagee. The respondents in S. A. No. 1501 of 1946 are the successors-in-interest of Sheo Saran Das, brother of Ram Baram Das who was the husband of the mortgagor, Sm. Rupa Kunwar. The respondents in the other S. A. No. 1270 of 1947 are the successors-in-interest of Ritu Baran Das, another brother of Ram Baram Das. The mortgage was executed by Sm. Rupa Kunwar in respect of one third share in Mahal Ritu Baran Das, which was at first designated as 4 pies Angruzi out of anna and later as anna 5 pies 4 share out of 16 annas The suits had been filed by the respondents of both these appeals for account in respect of that mortgage against the successor of their common mortgagee, N...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Abbas Vs. Mt. Razia Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All86
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. Nawab Chunnan and Nawab Kallan were real brothers. The former had two sons, Nawab Amjad Ali Khan and Wilayat Ali alias Wilayat Husain and the latter had a son named Mubarak Husain. Amjad Ali Khan was married to Mt. Razia Begam, the plaintiff-respondent, who instituted the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, to obtain a declaration that she was the owner in possession of house No. 42/13, situate in Mohalla Chah-meh-man In the city of Banaras, and that Sheikh Ghulam Abbas (defendant-appellant) had acquired no title thereto by purchase at an auction-sale in execution of a decree against Amjad Ali Khan, who had no interest therein. Amjad Ali Khan, who was arrayed as a defendant in the suit, died during the pendency of the suit; and Razia Begam and Wilayat Husain now appear on the record as his legal representatives.2. Nawab Amjad Ali Khan was the owner of two adjoining houses, bearing Nos. 15/60 and 15/61, situate in mohalla Chahmehman in Banaras. On 12-7-1919, h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »