Allahabad Court November 1950 Judgments
Tula Ram Vs. Bhajan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1953All609
ORDERMalik, C.J. 1. On 22-8-1944, the defendant Bhajan Singh is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 700/- from the plaintiff Tula Ram on the basis of a promissory note. On 22-8-1947, the plaintiff on his return to his house in Najibabad discovered that that was the last day for the filing of the suit on the basis of the promissory note. He had a plaint hurriedly drafted and went to Nagina, where the court is situate, and at 9-30 P.M. Mr. Ranbir Singh, Vakil for the plaintiff, went to the residence of the learned Munsif and wanted to file the plaint. The learned Munsif passed the following order on the back of the plaint: 'Presented to me by Mr. Ranbir Singh Vakil at 9-30 P.M. on 22nd August 1947, at my house. I do not think it proper to accept it at this late hour and, therefore, refuse to accept it and return it back to the said Vakil.'It is against this order that this revision has been filed. The opposite party is not represented before me. 2. In a Civil Revision under Section 115, C...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Singh and anr. Vs. Murlidhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All171
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This appeal came up before a learned Judge who, in view of the fact that there was no direct authority on the point requiring decision, referred to a Division Bench. The sole question for determination is whether having regard to the provisions of Section 5, Agra Preemption Act, 1922, a right of pre-emption exists in this village or not. The expression 'right of preemption' is defined as follows in Sub-section (9) of Section 4 of the Act :' 'Right of pre-emption' means the right of a person on a transfer of immovable property to be substituted in place of the transferee fay reason of aneh right.'Section 5 (1) of the Act provides as follows :'A right of pre-emption shall be deemed to exist only in mahals or villages in respect of which any wajib-ul-arz prepared prior to the commencement of this Act records a custom, contract or declaration : (a) recognising, conferring or declaring a right of preemption, expressly or by necessary implication, whatever its extent...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Mahbooban Vs. Mt. Fatima Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All167
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for pre-emption of a house sold by Mt. Batulan, defendant 2, to Mb. Mahbooban, defendant 1, on 2-8-1946 for Rs. 300. The plaintiff claimed the right both as a shafi-shareek and as a shafi-jar.2. One Sadullah was the owner of the house in dispute originally. In 1926 he sold a one-third share in the same to his wife in lieu of her dower. In 1931, Mt. Mahbooban (other than defendant 1) purchased at auction a one half share in the house in execution of a decree against Sadullah. On 2-8-1946, defendant 2, as I have already said, sold her one-third share, which she had purchased from her husband, to Mt. Mahbooban, defendant 1. Then the suit giving rise to this appeal was brought to pre empt this sale. Mahbooban, the original plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit, and in her place the name of Mt. Fatima Begum was substituted as her heir.3. A number of defences were taken by the defendants, but we are concerned only with one...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh and anr. Vs. Balkishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All328
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an appeal by Raghubir Singh and his son, Kunwar Brij Raj Singh, against an order refusing their application for amendment of a mortgage decree under Section 8, U. P. Debt Eedemption Act (XII [13] of 1940). 2. The application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that appellant 1 was an undischarged insolvent and apppellant 2, though a discharged insolvent, had still his property vested in the Receiver. The effect of such vesting of the appellants' property in the Eeceiver was that they themselves had ceased to be the owners of any property and as such ceased to be entitled to apply for amendment of the decree under the said Act. The Court below relied on the case of Gauri Shankar v. Jamuna Prasad, 1944 ALL. L. J. 440 and that of Abu Obaida v. Jamil Hasan, 1947 ALL. W. R. H. C. 260. 3. Learned coansel for the appellants has disputed the correctness of the order on the ground that, under Section 28(6), Provincial Insolvency Act, the debt in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Vs. Nanak Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All275
ORDERBrij Mohan Lal, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plffs. They brought a suit as representatives of the Hindu community of the town of Hathras for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from making certain constructions round a well & a temple of Shiva. Permission of the Court was obtained under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but an appeal was preferred against that decision by the opposite parties. While the case was pending in the appellate Court, the suit was compromised & a decree was passed accordingly.2. Sometime afterwards, the plffs., who were respondents to the appeal, applied to the appellate Court to have the compromise decree set aside. It is significant that the application was not pressed before the learned judge on the ground that the compromise was fraudulent, collusive or improper. A suggestion had been made in the petition of objection that the lawyers had no authority to enter into the compromise; but th...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Rai Vs. Mt. Ratoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All335
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for the possession of certain zamindari property, It is the common ground of the parties that the property originally belonged to one Bam Pratap Rai. His father, Manorath Rai, died in 1874 and shortly after Ram Pratap Rai also died leaving a widow Smt. Daulata and the mother, 8m. Amrita. He bad no issue. On 30-4-1906. Sm. Amrita along with one Deoki Rai, who was the nest reversioner, execrated a deed of gift in favour of Sm. Rato Kunwar, defendant 1. Rato Kunwar is the daughter of Deoki Rai. In 1908, the plaintiff's brother, Mahipal Bai, for self and as the guardian of the plaintiff brought Suit No. 445 of 1908 for a declaration that the deed of gift was ineffectual as against their interest. The auifi was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has now attained majority. Deoki Rai, 8m. Amrita and Daulta are all dead. The plaintiff is now the nest revereioner. The sait from which this appeal arises was instituted is Septem...
Tag this Judgment!Bir Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Basdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All610
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This application in revision has been filed under the following circumstances. On 30-8-1949, Basdeo filed a complaint against Bir Singh & 12 other persons, charging them with offences punishable under Section 147 & Sections 323 & 325 read with Section 149, Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad, in the Mathura district. The allegations in the complaint were that, on 21-7-1948, while the complainant was returning from the jungle, with his cattle, & passed by the house of Bir Singh, the latter asked him not to pass in front of his house; that the complainant went away towards his house saying that there could be no objection to his passing over a public thoroughfare; & that thereafter Bir Singh & the other accused persons came to the house of the complainant, wanted to drive away the cattle to the cattle-pound & when they were stopped from doing so, they attacked the complainant & his brother with lathis, causing them simple & grievous hurt...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All502
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Ram Pratap Lal Patwari, who was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, under Section 218, Penal Code, by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Faiza-bad. He preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of the same place, who upheld his conviction, but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The applicant was prosecuted along with two other persons, Mahant Prasad, Supervisor Kanungo, and Bhagwati Din, a Mukhtariam, on a complaint filed by Shri Ram and Mangroo on 27-8-1945. The case for the prosecution as disclosed in the complaint was that Shri Ram was the hereditary tenant of certain plots of land in village Mohiuddinpur. Mangroo and others shared with him in cultivation. Bhagwati Din had obtained a sale-deed in respect of half share of Zamindari in the aforesaid village in favour of his two daughters-in-law and wanted to oust Shri Ram from the tenancy and held by him. On 21-12-...
Tag this Judgment!B. Audhesh Singh Vs. B. Rajeshwari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All630
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. The following three points arise for determination in this appeal; (1) Whether a child in womb can take advantage of the provisions of Sections 6 & 8, Limitation Act (2) Whether the sale in dispute in respect of 3 pies share in Khata khewat No. 8 is invalid, having regard to the provisions of para. 11 of Schedule 3, Civil P. C. & (3) Whether the defts. vendees are entitled to any compensation under Section 65, Contract Act, if the sale is held to be void in regard to 3 pies share o khata khewat No. 8 If so, to what amount ?2. The material facts are as follows: On 13-10-1922, the pltf.'s father & uncle executed a deed of sale for Rs. 6,926 in favour of the defts. in regard to zamindari property situated in khata khewat Nos. 5, 8, 21, 33 & 35 of village Fatehpur in the district of Deoria. The pltf. was born 19 days later on 2-11-1922. We brought the suit from which this appeal arises on 11-5-1943, for the setting aside of the sale on two grounds: (1) that the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Naresh Rai and ors. Vs. Phanindra Behari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All612
Wali Ullah, J. 1. This is an appeal by the D.Hs. arising out of execution proceedings. A preliminary decree for sale on the basis of two mortgage deeds was passed on 28-5-1945. Later a final decree for sale was passed on 9-3-1946. The J.Ds. were six in number including a father & his five sons. It was found by the Court which passed the decree that a partition had been effected between the father & the sons by means of an award which had been made a rule of the Court, prior to the suit on the basis of the mortgages.2. Then the D.Hs. applied for execution of the final decree for sale. The property sought to be sold was zamindari property. The civil Court transferred the execution of the decree to the Collector. It is not clear whether this transfer was made by reason of the provisions of Section 63, Civil P.C., or by reason of the rules framed by the Provincial Govt. under Sections 16 & 17, U. P. Debt Redemption Act. Before the Collector, or rather the Sales Officer, three of the six J....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »