Allahabad Court February 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.
B. Bhuwan Bhushan Shah Vs. B. Balbhaddar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All460
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal from an order, dated 28th July 1917, made by the Additional Civil Judge of Banaras, in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, Shri Bhuwan Bhushan Shah, against his father Shri Krishna Mohan Shah, and the latter's transferee, Shri Balbhaddar Das, by which the appellant was asked to make good the deficiency in court-fee paid on the plaint. On 1st December 1941, Krishna Mohan Shah, on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor son, Bhuwan Bhushan Shah, executed a sale-deed and later on, on 26th May 1942, a rent-deed in respect of certain property in favour of Balbhaddar Das. The appellant instituted the suit, referred to above, challenging the binding nature of the said deeds and to obtain a declaration that he was not bound by them. He treated the suit as a simple suit for declaration and paid a court-fee of Rs. 37-8-0 only. Later on, it was conceded on his behalf that the suit was one involving cancellation of the sale-deed and it was of the...
Ram Gopal and Ors. Vs. Official Receiver, Judge's Court and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All479
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal against the appellate order of the Court below by which a certain sale deed of zamindari property has been annulled as against the sons of one Manik Chand who were adjudged insolvents by the Insolvency Court.2. The appellants, Ram Gopal and others, purchased zamindari property in three villages, viz,, Imlani, Ekri and Mai, under a sale deed executed on 7th January 1938, by Kewal Ram, Jai Kishan Das and the sons of Manik Chand. Thereafter on 7th April 1938, Ganga Prasad, a creditor of the sons of Manik Chand, applied for their insolvency. On 6th March 1941, the sons of Manik Chand were adjudged insolvents. This order of adjudication was affirmed in appeal on 16th December 1942. On 20th September 1943, the receiver in insolvency applied to the Insolvency Court for annulment of the sale deed executed on 7th January 1938. This application was made Under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, on the ground that the creditors were shown undue preference by ...
Rex Vs. Genda Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All525
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. Genda Singh and others are on trial before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Deoria, district Gorakhpur, for an offence under Section 228, read with Section 117, Penal Code. The offence is bailable. The learned Magistrate ordered the accused to be released on bail on furnishing two sureties each in Rs. 2000 and a personal bond in Rs. 2000. He also ordered the accused to give an undertaking that they would not take part in any public demonstration and would not make any public speech or' do anything regarding fresh abetment of an offence under Section 228, Penal Code. The accused went up to the Sessions Judge, who modified the order of the learned Magistrate to the extent that the amount of the sureties was reduced to Rs. 250 each and that the condition imposed by the Magistrate was cancelled. This is an application for the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, praying that the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate should be re-imposed.2. I ...
Jagdish Singh and anr. Vs. Mulaim Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All529
Walli Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by Jagdish Singh and Raghuraj Singh who were appellants before the learned District Judge. On an office report to the effect that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped, they were directed to pay the the deficient court-fee within a certain period of time. It appears that the office of the learned District Judge reported that there was a deficiency in court-fee to the extent of Rs. 17-13-0 as it was of the view that the appeal was directed against an order passed under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, which under Sub-section (4) of that section has to be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court.2. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Second Grade, against which the appeal was filed in the Court of the learned District Judge. The application made by the appellants in the Court of the Special Judge in substance prayed that they might be included in the array of the applicants under Section 4, Encumbered Estat...
Ram Alam Lal and ors. Vs. Dukhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All427
Desal, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiffs whose application for the filing of an award has been dismissed by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge of Banaras on appeal. It was alleged by the applicants that on 5th November 1943 an agreement was entered into by the parties for referring their disputes to arbitration, that accordingly the disputes were referred to arbitration, and that the arbitrators gave an award on 23rd January 1944. The applicants applied on 17th July 1944 for the filing of the award. The application was resisted by the defendants-opposite parties on the ground that there was no valid reference and that their signatures on the supposed reference were obtained fraudulently. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the application was filed, dismissed the objection of the opposite parties and passed a decree in terms of the award. The opposite parties filed an appeal from the decree in the Court of the learned Civil Judge who, holding that there was no valid agr...
Tilakdhari Misra Vs. Dhondha Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All439
Desai, J.1. The appellant is a co-sharer in the village and sir-holder of the land in dispute. The respondent took forcible possession of the land in dispute in 1935 or thereabout without the consent of the appellant and has been cultivating it since then. These facts are not in dispute. The appellant sued the respondent for his ejectment from the laud in dispute in a Munsif's Court on 31.5-1944. The suit was contested by the respondent on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and that he had become a hereditary tenant of the land. An issue about the tenancy rights claimed by him was referred by the learned Munsif to a revenue Court for its finding. The revenue Court found that the respondent should have been ejected by the appellant Under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act within three years and that on account of his failure to do so the respondent has now become a hereditary tenant. On receipt of this finding the learned Munsif decided the other issues and held that the suit of t...
Shri Krishna Vs. Sm. Saraswati Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All499
Mootham, J.1. A memorandum of appeal was presented to us yesterday one day prior to the expiry of the period of limitation by learned counsel, who at the same time asked the Court to allow the appellant one month's time within which to pay the deficiency in the court-fee amounting to Rs. 705-10-0. It is not in dispute that the court-fee payable on the memorandum is Rs. 709-6-0; the court-fee in fact paid is Rs. 3-12-0. It is clear therefore that the memorandum of appeal is presented with an insufficient court-fee, and with the knowledge of its insufficiency, for the purpose of saving limitation.2. Section 4, United Provinces Court-fees Act provides that inter alia, no memorandum of appeal shall be received by a High Court unless the full court-fee thereon has been paid. That section must however be read in conjunction with Section 149, Civil P. C., which gives the Court power, in its discretion, to allow payment of the whole or part of the court, fee to be made after the document has b...