Allahabad Court November 1950 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.
Beni Prasad Vs. Mahraj Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All622
1. These two third appeals are directed against two decisions of our learned brother Desai J. They arise out of two suits instituted by Beni Prasad, applt. in the Court of the Asst. Collector, first class, Partabgarh, for a -declaration and possession under Sections 63 and 180, U. P. Tenancy Act. The claims were founded on a heritable and transferable lease of certain plots in villages Gopalpur and Raina Satkhera granted by the landlord Bhaya Suraj Prasad Singh on 2-1-1942, to Beni Prasad. Shortly before the execution of the perpetual lease, the landlord had on 14-12-1941, let out two of the plots covered by the perpetual lease, namely, Plots Nos. 117 and 118 in Gopalpur to Maharaj Din, deft., resp. in Appeal No. 6 of 1949 and the other Plot No. 2 in Raina Satkhera to Sita Ram, deft, in the suit which gives rise to Appeal No. 7. Sita Ram has since died and is represented by Ganga Din and Moti Lal, respondents.2. The sole question which falls for determination in these two cases is whet...
Jaisri Tewari and anr. Vs. State Through Bindeshivari Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All494
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Jaisri Tewari and his son, Surajbali Tewari. The facts leading up to the revision are these : On 11-7-1949, Bindeshwari Tewari filed a complaint against Jaisri Tewari and Surajbali Tewari. In the complaint, it was prayed that the accused be dealt with for offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 504 and 506, Penal Code. There was a further prayer that they may also be required to execute a bond for keeping the peace under Section 106, Criminal P. C. The complainant, Bindeshwari Tewari, described himself as the piada of Srinath Sah and others, zemindars of village Sahjore in the district of Banaras. He had alleged in the complaint that the zemindars had obtained a decree for ejectment under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act (XVII [17] of 1939) against Jaisri Tewari and Surajbali Tewari; that the zemindars had taken possession over the land in dispute under the decree made on 25-5-1949, and that while he was getting the land...
Mohd. Ishaq Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All512; [1951]19ITR70(All)
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, in which the following questions have been referred to us :'Q. 1. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the income of the wife and children of the assessee arising from the Waqf-alal-aulad created by him on 28-10-1941 under the Muslim Waqf Validating Act of 1913 can be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 16 (3) (b)?Q. 2. Whether under the Waqf created on 28-10-1941 by the assessee under the Musalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913, the assets have been transferred to 'God' or to the Mutwalli holding possession of such assets ?Q. 3. Whether the word 'Person' as used in the last sentence of Section 16 (3) includes such an entity as 'God'?Q. 4. Whether the transfer of assets as contemplated by Section 16 (3) (b) includes the transfer of assets to the human agency through whom the management of the Waqf is carried on '2. Nadir Ali Shah and Muhammad Ishaq of Meerut City execut...
Mst. Ulfat and ors. Vs. Zubaida Khatoon and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1955All361
Kidwai, J. 1. The following pedigree will help to elucidate the facts of the case : MT. ULFAT=SIRAJUDDIN | ____________________________|______________________________ | | | | | Mt. Sajiram Mt. Mahumudan Qadeor Mt. Asiran Zahir Uddin =Jamil (Deft. 2) O.S.P. =Abdul Rashid (Death 1942)=Zubeda =Ali Mohammad 1931 (Pltt. 1) (Deft. 3) | Mt. Fahmida (Pltf.2)2. Zubeda and Fahmida, mentioned in the above pedigree, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against the appellants for the following reliefs : (1) A decree against all the defendants for the partition of a ten annas share in the property left by Zahiruddin which, the plaintiffs alleged, was the entire property entered in list A attached to the plaint and which was in the possession of Ulfat and Mohmudan though a small portion of it -- the goods in the tailors shop -- was in possession of All Mohammad. (2) A decree for dower amounting to Rs. 250/- against defendants 1 and 2; and (3) A decree against defendant No. 1 for the re...
Shri Om Prakash Gupta Vs. the United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All205
Desai, J.1. This is an appeal by the pltf. part of whose claim has been dismissed by the Civil Judge of Allahabad.2. The applt. was successful in the competitive examination for the Provincial Civil Executive) Service. He was taken in service as a Deputy Collector & took over charge on 26-6-1940. In due course he was confirmed. In 1948 he was transferred from Dehra Dun to Ballia & in 1944 he was transferred to Lakhimpur Kheri. He joined his duties at Lakhimpur Kheri on 20-7-1944. On 23-8-1944 he was telegraphically suspended from service pending an enquiry into certain charges On 27 8-1944, a charge-sheet Was handed over to him & he was required to appear before the Comr. at Lucknow on 28-8-1944 for explanation. He appeared before the Comr. on 28-8-1944 & protested against the procedure adopted by him for the enquiry. The Comr. completed the enquiry on 1-9-1944, & submitted his report to Govt. On 11-9-1944, the Comr. recommenced the enquiry probably under instructions from Govt. On 30-...
Ram Dass Murari Vs. Binda Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All274
Kidwai, J.1. Binda Din instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises against Bam Dass Murari appellant alleging that he was the tenant of a plot of land situated in village Jethauna inthe district of Sultanpur & that the deft. had during the pltf's. absence on war service raised a 'saria' on the land & prevented the plff. from cultivating it. It was further alleged that the land was used by the deft, for sitting & placing his khaliyan upon it. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession be passed in favour of the plff. by removal of all things existing upon the land. 2. The deft, pleaded that he had built nothing upon the land of the plff., & alternatively that, if the 'saria' was found to exist upon the plff's. land, it had been in existence for such a considerable length of time that the deft, had acquired the rights of a riyaya by adverse possession. It waa further denied that the plff. was entitled to any damage. No plea as to jurisdiction was taken. 3. The trial C...
Raj NaraIn Vs. Sita Ram Sri Kishen Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All584
1. This case was referred to a Bench as a point of law which arose in this case had arisen in another S. A. No. 15 of 1945 & that case had been referred to a Bench for decision. We understand from Mr. Jagdish Swarup that the parties to the S. A. No. 15 of 1945 entered into a compromise, & so the point was not decided in that case. The point, however, came up for decision in Letters Patent App. No. 1 of 1945, which was decided by this Bench on 20-1-1949. During the period that the Defence of India Rules were in force orders were issued by various Dist. Magistrates regulating ejectment of tenants, fixation of rents payable by tenants & various other matters. A question arose whether, when a suit was filed in the civil Court for ejectment of a tenant in contravention of an order passed by a Dist. Magistrate under the Defence of India Rules, what action the civil Court should take in view of such an order. A learned single Judge of this Court was of the opinion that the order should be ign...
Mt. Sukhwanti Mata Ghulam Vs. Hon'ble Board of Revenue, U.P. through R ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1953All608
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari'. The application is supported by an affidavit in which the facts are set out. 2. It appears that the applicant instituted a suit for division of cerain holdings under Section 49, U. P. Tenancy Act, and claimed one third share therein. The suit was dismissed by the He-venue Officer and on appeal, the order of dismissal was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter a second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. In due course, the appeal came on for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. C., and it was dismissed summarily on 22-11-1949. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, an application lor the review of judgment was filed which was also dismissed on 15-6-1950. It appears from the affidavit in support of the application that the appellant had engaged a lawyer to argue her appeal before the Board of Revenue but no opportunity was given to the p...
Bishambher Vs. Roomal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All500
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of acquittal. It has been filed after a similar application to the Sessions Judge of Meerut has been rejected. Such an application can be entertained only in exceptional cases; and it was admitted having regard to the special circumstances of the case, because, at the time of its presentation, it was thought that, on the facts found, a question of law of general importance to the community arose in the case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the record, I find that the only question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the accused persons were entitled to and were rightly allowed the benefits of the exceptions mentioned in Sections 81, 87 and 88, Penal Code.2. Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh and Balwant Singh, Khacheru, Mansukh and Nathu were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 114, Penal Code. They were tried b...
SahabuddIn Vs. Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All227
Malik, C.J.1. The applt. was a month to month tenant & the rent reserved was Rs. 17/-only. He did not pay rent for the months of January & February 1946. The landlord on 6-3-1946 gave him a notice calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent & to vacate the premises on 31-3-1946. The arrears were not paid nor were the premises vacated. A suit for ejectment & for arrears of rent was filed on 3-5-1946. The parties entered into a compromise on 8-11-1946. The terms of the compromise were that the applt. would vacate the house within six months & he would pay Rs. 38/- on account of arrears of rent & damages for use & occupation. It was not specified how much of it was due as arrears of rent & how much for use & occupation. Rupees 38 were paid after several months. On 27-5-1947, after expiry of six months the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree for ejectment.2. Reliance was placed on certain provisions of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act (III [3] o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›