Allahabad Court March 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.
Jagat NaraIn Prasad Sahu Vs. Madhusudan Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All327
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the transfer of a plot by the Government of the Utter Pra-desh in favour of defendant-respondents 1 and 2 is ultra vires and void and, in the alternative, for a declaration that the plaintiff has a preferential right of taking the transfer and for an order for the transfer of the land to the plaintiff by defendant respondents 1 and 2.2. A further relief claimed was to the effect that the constructions made by defendant-respondents 1 and 2 be removed and they may be restrained by an injunction from making any other construction on the land in dispute and for maintaining the land in dispute as a passage for the public or for the plaintiff or for both.3. The property in dispute is plot No. 67 in village Sahjanwa. It was formerly owned by the plaintiff-appellant. In the year 1883, the U. P. Government acquired this land for the purposes of the railway station at Sahjanwa. After the acquisition, the lan...
Wali Mohammad Chaudhari and ors. Vs. Jamal UddIn Chaudhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All524
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The defendants are brothers of Jamaluddin Chaudhari, plaintiff respondent. Jamaluddin lives in Dutch Guiana. The fourth brother Shahabuddin filed a suit on his behalf for possession over his one-fourth share in the family property described at the -foot of the plaint. Shahabuddin claimed that under a power of attorney executed by Jamaluddin, he had been given power to institute the suit on his behalf. The suit was decreed by both the Courts below. The defendants, brothers of Jamaluddin, have filed this second appeal.2. During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellants filed a compromise executed by Tajammul Husain as general attorney for Jamaluddin plaintiff respondent. This compromise was sent to the lower Court for verification. It was duly verified by Tajammul Hussain who produced the power of attorney purporting to have been executed by Jamaluddin. Shahabuddin objected to this compromise on the ground that Tajammul Husain had no ...
Lunkush and ors. Vs. Rajendra Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All528
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over two plots Nos. 1697 and 1698 studded with trees.2. The plaintiff is a zamindar and the owner of the plots. According to him, the defendants had unlawfully taken possession of the plots and planted a grove on them without the consent of the plaintiff or his guardian when he was a minor. The suit was filed in the civil Court for the ejectment of the defendants.3. The defence was that the defendants had taken the plots in suit from the mother of the plaintiff when he was a minor and had planted the grove 11 years before the suit with her consent, and that consequently they were grove-holders and could not be ejected. An issue about the groveholders' right was raised. The issue was sent to the revenue Court for a finding. The revenue Court found that the defendants were groveholders. The Munsif thereupon dismissed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court held that the defendants were not groveholders...
Har Sahai and ors. Vs. Jugul Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All206
ORDERKidwai, J.1. Her Sahai and his brothers applied under the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act. Among the property which the Special Judge reported, under Section 19 (2) of the Act, to be liable to attachment and sale in satisfaction of the debts of the applicant was a decree held by, them against Jugal Kishore, Ram Achari and Bam Autar, When the matter came before the Collector under Section 24, Encumbered Estates Act, Jugal Kishore applied on 8-10-1945, stating that the decree was barred by time and so should not be included in the list of the property of Bam Sahai and others. oN the same day the following order was passed : 'File. No. Action to be taken on these decrees.' (In the order-sheet which is also signed by the Presiding Officers the following entry is made 'Digriyat be wajch hone beroon miad nilam say bari ki jayain aur uspar kisi karrawaee ki zarurat nahin hai.')2. On 11-8-1943, the decree-holders applied for execution of their decree against Jugal Kishore and oth...
Bohrey Mathura Prasad Vs. Rex Through Notified Area Commiitee
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All458
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application by one Bohrey Mathura Prasad against his conviction and sentence under Section 307, U. P. Municipalities Act (Act No. II [2] of 1916) by a Magistrate of the Second Class in the Mathura District which conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Mathura. The applicant lives in the Notified Area of Kasi Kalan and sought the permission of the Notified Area to build a shop. The charge against him was that he did not construct it according to the permission granted to him by the Notified Area and did not leave four feet of land between his shop and the public road. A notice was thereupon served upon him under Section 186, Municipalities Act, on 11th February 1917, But he took no steps and did not appeal to the District Magistrate under Section 318 of the Act. Thereafter, he was prosecuted under Section 307, Municipalities Act and convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. It would appear that there is by...
Baboo and ors. Vs. Mt. Kirpa Dai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All488
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for partition.2. The plaintiff respondent and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo claimed to be the owners of a half share in the property in suit. They relied upon a previous decree in support of their claim. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo had no share in the property at all and that the previous decree did not operate as res judicata.3. The trial Court upheld the defence and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, held that, although the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant Shrimati Tejo could not prove that they had half share, the point was concluded by the previous judgment as against the defendants who were parties thereto, and, therefore, it decreed the suit.4. In this second appeal the only point urged is that the previous decree did not operate as res judicata.5. The facts relating to this matter are as follows: One Ram Sarup had a simp...
Rup Lal Vs. Ram Swarup S/O Bachan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All504
Seth, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for his ejectment from certain premises situate at Chhibramau in the District of Farrukhabad. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (in [3] of 1947), were extended to the town area of Chhibramau also. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Act and, therefore, he cannot be ejected. It is submitted that this point was not urged before the lower appellate Court, because while the case was pending before that Court it was not krown that the Act has been extended to the Chhibramau town area. I have, therefore, permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to satisfy me that he is entitled to resist ejectment by reason of the aforesaid Act. The mere fact that the Act has been extended to the town area of Chhibramau will not render the suit...
Mt. Ram Piari Vs. Nawab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All496
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for fixation of rent under Section 94, U. P. Tenancy Act.2. The defendants-respondents have been in possession for more than 12 years. They have been recorded in the Khatauni as being in possession without settlement of rent. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants-respondents were tenants and that a reasonable rent should be fixed on the holding in their possession. The defendants claimed to have acquired proprietary title by adverse possession. An issue on proprietary title was sent to the civil Court. The Munsif decided that proprietary title has not been acquired. The revenue Court thereupon fixed the rent. The defendants went up in appeal to the District Judge who has held that the defendants have acquired title to the land by adverse possession.3. In this second appeal the only point is whether on the facts found it can be said in law that the defendants have acquired proprietary title in land by adverse posse...
Sri Niwas Tewari Vs. Baleshwar Prasad Bhagat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All526
V. Bhargava, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits brought for recovery of possession of mortgaged property by the mortgagee against the mortgagor, The mortgage in one suit was executed on 10th October 1927 and stipulated that interest would be payable on 30th Jeth every year. A condition was attached that, in case the interest was not paid on the due date, the mortgagee would be entitled to take possession of the mortgaged property. No interest was paid in cash but between the years 1927 and 1931 two sarkhats were executed in respect of the interest due. Then on 19th July 1931, another mortgage, which is the basis of the second suit, was executed on 19th July 1931. In this mortgage also, there was a stipulation that the interest was to be paid on 30th Jeth every year and, in default of payment of interest, the mortgagee was to be entitled to tike possession. Neither of the two mortgages provided for any other re-medy for recovery of mortgage money. No-interest was paid ...
Satish Chandra and anr. Vs. Jwala Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All461
ORDERSeth, J.1. The plaintiffs-applicants are the auction-purchasers. They purchased some property belonging to opposite party Jwala Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the 'judgment-debtor') in execution of a decree in favour of opposite party Girdhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as the 'decree-holder') against the judgment-debtor. The sale was confirmed on 21st April 1942. Consequent on the confirmation of the sale the decree holder withdrew from the Court, the sale price deposited by the plaintiffs applicants. The order confirming the sale was set aside on appeal by the District Judge of Pilibhit and the order of the District Judge was upheld by this Court. The District Judge, while setting aside the sale, provided by his order that the auction purchasers shall get interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, but omitted to pass any order for the refund of the purchase money. The auction-purchasers then instituted the suit giving rise to this application in revision against the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »