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.
R.N. Seth Vs. Girja Shanker Srivastava
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All819
Harish Chandra, J. 1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Lucknow reversing in part the judgment and decree of the Munsif, North Lucknow, dismissing the respondent's suit against the appellant for arrears of rent and ejectment from a certain house. The lower appellate Court decreed the respondent's suit for ejectment but dismissed it with respect to the claim for arrears of rent. The appellant has come up in second appeal to this Court. 2. The only questions that arise in this appeal are of law. Admittedly the appellant is the tenant of the respondent in the house in dispute. The respondent gave him the requisite fifteen days' notice as required under Section 106, T. P. Act, 1882 and produced evidence of his having been given the necessary permission by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Lucknow under Section 3, U. P. Control and Eviction Act, 1947, for the institution of the suit. The fact that such permission was given by the Re...
Punn Deb Vs. Mt. Bishnuli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All454
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge of Kumaun recommending that the order of a learned Magistrate directing Pandit Punn Deb applicant to pay cash maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 per month to his wife Sm. Bishnuli under Section 489 Criminal P. C., be set aside and 8m. Bishnuli be directed to seek her remedy in the civil Court.2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: Sm. Bishnuli is the Dhanit wife of Pandit Punn Deb of Naugaon Mirayee Patti Walla Gewar, Tahsil Ranikhet District Almora. On 8th January 1944, she made an application under Section 488, Criminal P. C. claiming maintenance from her husband. There was a compromise between the parties in the course of these proceedings whereby Pandit Punn Deb agreed that he would give to Sm. Bishnuli a house to live in and half of a certain piece of land by way of maintenance for her and for her son. In accordance with this compromise, the Magistrate passed an order on 4th April 1944 directi...
Mardan and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1950All478
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision by Mardan and others who have been convicted Under Section 379, Penal Cods and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 26/- each by an order of the learned Sessions Judge hearing an appeal against an order of a learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had originally sentenced the applicants to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. This sentence was reduced in appeal, as stated above.2. The point raised by learned counsel is a very short one. While the case was pending before the Magistrate, an application for transfer of the case was made by the applicants to the District Magistrate on 24th March 1949. The proceedings were, however, not stayed during the hearing of this transfer application. On 1st April 1949, the defence produced its evidence before the Magistrate, the prosecution evidence having already been taken before the transfer application had been made. On 4th April the Dis...
Ram Charan Vs. Shri Radha Kishan Ji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All242
1. The Stamp Reporter's report is that the appeal was filed 47 days beyond time, that is, it was in time up to 2-7-1949. The order appealed against is dated 2-6-1949. The affidavit in support of the appln. Under Section 5, Limitation Act, discloses that the order was passed late in the evening & that the appln. for copy could not, therefore, be filed before the Ct. closed for the summer vacation. The appln. for copy was filed on 4-7-1949, the re-opening day of the Ct. & the copy of the decree was ready on 13-8 1949, & was delivered to the learned counsel for the appct. on the same day. The 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th being holidays, the appeal could not be filed before the 18th & it was filed on that date. We are, therefore, satisfied that it is a fit case where the delay should be condoned, & the appln. Under Section 5, Limitation Act, granted.2. Mr. H.N. Seth, on behalf of the opposite party has, however, urged that it was not necessary to file copies of the judgment & the decree &, ther...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›