Allahabad Court March 1950 Judgments
Mt. Anganyan and ors. Vs. Gurdat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All313
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Gurdat Singh, the plaintiff-respondent, against Chiranji and others, the defendants-appellants, and another set of defendants, who are arrayed as pro forma respondents in the appeal to recover possession over certain land by demolition of the house constructed thereon by the appellants. 2. The respondents were owners of the land in dispute; and, as a result of partition among them, Gurdat Singh, the plaintiff-respondent, had become owner of the land. Before the partition, the respondents had instituted a suit against Durga, the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, to obtain possession over the same land by removal of the constructions made thereon by him. Durga died during the pendency of the suit; and the appellants were substituted in his place. That suit was decreed against the appellants on 10th December 1936. In execution of the decree, a warrant for delivery of possession in terms thereof was issued, and on 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!Panchaiti Akhara Maha Nirvani Vs. Bindeshri Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All337
Wali Ullan, J.1. This is an appeal fay the decree-holder against au 'order passed by the execution Court whereby the objections filed by the sons of Bindeshri Prasad, the judgment debtor, were allowed and their three-fourths share in the property attached was released from attachment.2. It appears that a simple mortgage deed was executed on 8-10-1928 by Bindeshri Prasad for Rs. 5,600 payable in five years in favour of the plaintiff, the Panchayati Akhara. The deed carried interest at fourteen annas per cent. per mensem. It also provided that if the mortgagor did not pay the interest within the stipulated period of five yeara, the mortgagee would be entitled to realise the entire amount of the mortgage debt either within the stipulated period or after the stipulated time, A suit for sale on the basis of the mortgage was instituted on 11-10-1932 and there was a clear allegation in the plaint that the mortgagor had not paid the interest as agreed upon. To this suit Bindeshri Prasad as wel...
Tag this Judgment!Hola Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All485
ORDERWanchoo, J.1. This is an application by Hola Ram for the transfer of a criminal case pending before a Special Magistrate in Lucknow to the Court of some Magistrate in Allahabad on the ground of convenience to the parties.2. Two preliminary questions, however, arise in this case. The first is whether the present application for transfer should have been made to the Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow. The second is whether it is open to the Bench at Lucknow to transfer the case from Lucknow to Allahabad. Article 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, provides as follows:'The new High Court, and the Judges and division Courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint :Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All209
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. The Medical Officer of Health, Brindaban, ordered prosecution of Janki Das for an offence under Section 4, U. P. Prevention of Adulteration Act, on 10-3-1948. The accused was summoned on this complaint. The complaint was dismissed by Shri F. S Fantheme Magistrate first class, with order 'No sanction under Section 12 Adult. Act. Case dismissed.'2. A revision against this order was filed before the Additional District Magistrate of Mathura. He has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order of the learned Magistrate be quashed. In his Court a copy of the order of the Chairman Municipal Board, Brindaban, was filed. This order, dated2-2-1947, is :'With reference to Section 12, Prevention of Adulteration Act read with Government Notification Nos. 2193/XVI-829-44, dated 20-12-1944, Dr. Maharaj Singh is hereby autherised to institute cases under the said Act.'3. The learned counsel for the accused had urged that the Chairman of the Municipa...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Salig Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All298
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house. The house in dispute belonged to Govind and Pitam. They mortgaged it with the plaintiff-appellant on 27-7-1928. The mortgage was simple. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit in 1940 for sale of the house, on the basis of the simple mortgage. In due course, there was an order for sale and the sale was held on 17-5-1944 and was confirmed on 18-7-1944. The plaintiff himself was the auction purchaser.2. It appears that the mortgagors were indebted to a co-operative bank. The bank realised the money due to them by sale of the house in suit This sale took place in 1941 during the pendency of the mortgage suit. The sale was under the provisions of the Land. Revenue Act because the amount due to the co-operative bank is realisable as land revenue. The defendants were the purchasers at this revenue sale. The plaintiff, could not get possession over the house under his purchase as the defendants had c...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Sunder Vs. L. Pratap Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All330
Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for preparation of a final decree in a suit for rendition of partnership accounts after dissolution. The parties, Shiam Sunder, plaintiff, and Pratap Chandra, defendant, entered into a partnership business on 2-9-1939, for sale of cloth, in mohalla Daliganj, Lucknow. The defendant was to pro-vide the funds and the plaintiff was to act as the working partner. The business was dissolved on 20-8-1940. A fresh partnership was begun on 3-9-1940, and was dissolved in January 1941. The shop was then finally closed. The stock, which was in hand at the time, was in possession of Pratap Chandra. A major portion of it was mixed up by him with the goods of his own cloth shops and was sold sometime between 1941 and 1942 without any separate account being kept of its sale. 2. Shiam Sundar's suit was instituted on 11-4-1942 and the preliminary decree was passed on28-11-1942. The application for preparation of the final decree was preferred on 1-5-194...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra Vs. Ram Swarup Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All449
Agarwala, J.This is a defendant's appeal arisingout of a suit for recovery of damages. Theplaintiff owned a motor lorry which was beingused for unloading ballast in the Kharia aerodrome.On 21-7-1942, a lorry driven by Maqbul Hasan defendant 2 (respondent 3 in the present appeal) while engaged in the business of transporting ballast from a certain village to the Kheria aerodrome struck the plaintiff's lorry and damaged it. The plaintiff had to incur expenses inrepairing the lorry and the lorry remained out ofuse for a period of about one month. The plaintiff'scase was that the lorry was owned by the defendant-appellantfirm which was arrayed as defendant1 in the suit and that defendant 2, MaqbulHasan was its servant working under its directionsat the time of the incident. He alleged furtherthat defendant 2 was driving the motor lorryrashly and negligently and it was on account ofsuch rash and negligent driving of defendant 2that the plaintiff's lorry was damaged. He, therefore,sued both ...
Tag this Judgment!Munir Khan Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All488
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. Munir Khan was convicted by Sri D. D. Agarwal, Judicial Officer, Jaunpur, of an offence under Section 12, Opium Act, read with Section 5, and was sentenced to Rs. 200 fine in a summary trial. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, has made this reference recommending the setting aside of the conviction on the ground that the learned Magistrate was not competent to try Munir Khan summarily.2. It appears that Sri D. D. Agarwal was appointed a Judicial Officer at Kanpur under an order of the Government dated 5-8-1947, and that by virtue of some earlier notification, Judicial Officers were conferred with first class magisterial powers. By virtue of this appointment as judicial Officer, Sri Agarwal. could exercise only first class powers within the district of Kanpur.3. In January 1948, the Government conferred on him the powers of a Magistrate, 1st class, to be exercised by him in respect of all cases arising within the railway limits of the B. B. & C. I. Rly., F...
Tag this Judgment!Avadesh Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Ram Raj Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All333
Kidwai, J. 1. One Ram Sarup Singh died about 1905 leaving a widow, Balraj Kuar, two sons, Mahabir Singh and Indarpal Singh and three daughters, Ram Raj Kuar, Partab Kuar and Jaipal Kuar. The two sons died shortly after their father (circa 1906) and their mother was their only heir. Accordingly mutation was effected in her favour and she obtained possession of the property, which included a 1 anna 9165/175 pie share in village Ghandra Bhanpur, in the district of Partabgarh. On 5-3 1919, Balraj Kuar sold the share to Thakur Badri Narain Singh for Rs. 4000. Badri Narain entered into possession and in December. 1935, when he applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, he showed their share also in the list of his properties. 2. Balraj Kuar died in November, 1987, and on 11 3-1945, Bam Baj Kuar, Partab Kuar and Jaipil Kuar. filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against Badri Narain Singh for possession of the property on the ground that the sale in favour of Badri Narain was f...
Tag this Judgment!B. Govind Raj Sewak Singh and anr. Vs. Bebhuti NaraIn Singh (Minor)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All487
Agarwala, J.1. This is a judgment debtors' appeal arising out of execution proceedings.2. The judgment-debtors are alleged to be agriculturists and their protected land could not be sold under the provisions of Section 17, U. P. Debt Redemption Act. Section 13 of the Act provides an exception in favour of a bank. Both the Courts below have held that the loan in this case was advanced by the Benaras State Bank and not by the plaintiff Maharaja Bebhuti Narain Singh, Maharaja of Banaras, personally. They have, therefore, dismissed the objections of the judgment-debtors to the execution of the decree by sale of the protected land.3. The only point urged in this appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in holding that the present case fell within the purview of Section 13. The argument is that the plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was the owner of the Slate Bank and he sued in that capacity and that if that was so, then it could not be a bank because Under Section 2 (4) a bank must be ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »