Allahabad Court August 1950 Judgments
Shori Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All193
ORDERWaliullah, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow recommending that the appeal filed in his Court by one Shori Lal in respect of an offence which is alleged to have been committed in the district of Dehra-Dun be ordered to be received by the learned Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun.2. It appears that Shori Lal, son of Quran Datta Mal, an assistant station master of Doiwala, was tried by Shri Girja Shankar Misra, Special Magistrate, U. P. with his headquarters at Lucknow, for an offence under Section 161, Penal Code. The trial was held by the learned Magistrate at Lucknow. The offence was alleged to have been committed at Doiwala, district Dehra Dun. On 5-7-1950, he was convicted of the offence under Section 161, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further terms of six months. Against his conviction Shori Lal prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Lal Vs. Sachchidanand Purshji Mahraj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All382
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1.This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Pilibhit, who affirmed a decree of the learned Munsif of that place. The latter had decreed the suit.2. It appears that one Hardwari Singh owned certain property. By a deed of endowment dated 12-11-1935 he transferred the property to an idol which he had installed, and provided in the deed that after meeting the necessary expenses in connection with the temple the rest of the income was to be distributed among his daughter (hereafter described as respondent), his son and certain other relations. He constituted the respondent to be the manager and lambardar of the endowed property.3. After Hardwari Singh's death the respondent herself moved an application before the revenue authorities praying that her brother, the appellant, be appointed as the lambardar. This Was done.4. In 1943 the respondent and the idol (acting through the respondent) instituted the suit which has given rise to th...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Ram Chandra Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All372
Malik, C.J.1. The point that has been referred to us for decision is :'Whether a decree obtained against a minor is void because the guardian appointed by the Court had been guilty of gross negligence or is it merely voidable?'2. The reference was made by reason of the fact that there was a difference of opinion on the point between the Oudh Chief Court and the Allahabad High Court before its amalgamation. In Mohammad Baksh v. Allah Din, 17 Luck. 1: (A. I. R. (29) 1942 Oudh 33) a Bench of the Oudh Chief Court -- Bennett and Madeley JJ. -- had held that such a decree was merely voidable at the option of the minor; while in Dwarika Halwai v. Sitla Prasad : AIR1940All256 , Bennet and Verma JJ. had held that the decree was null and void. Both. the decisions were, however, said to be based on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mt. Siraj Fatma v. Mahmud Ali : AIR1932All293 .3. The point for consideration before the Full Bench in Mt. Siraj Fatma, v. Mahmud Ali : AIR1932All293 was whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Lal Vs. Hanuman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All398
Agarwala, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Fatehpur allowing the judgment-debtor's objection that the appellant's application for execution was barred by time. The matter came up before one of us, who, in view of some conflict of opinion upon the point to be decided in the case, referred it to a Bench, The facts briefly stated are as follows :2. A decree for money was passed in favour of the appellant on 27-6-1930. The appellant filed an application for execution on 3-7 1933. This was within time as it was filed immediately on the re-opening of the Court after the summer vacation. This application was dismissed on 28 7-1933. The second execution application was filed on 25-7-1936. This was dismissed on 27-8-1936. Then the present application for execution was filed on 19-9 1942. It is conceded by both the parties that unless the question of limitation is barred by res judicata it must be held that this application was beyond time even...
Tag this Judgment!Banaras Bank Ltd., (In Liquidation) Vs. Jyoti Bhushan Gupta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All362; [1951]21CompCas266(All)
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding in which the main point for consideration is whether Article 182 or 183, Limitation Act, 1908, applies to the execution application, dated 22-9-1946. The relevant facts are as follows :2. The Banaras Bank, Limited, is under liquidation and on 15-9-1942, a payment order for Rs. 95,178-5-9 was passed against the respondent by this Court under Section 186, Companies Act, 1913. By virtue of Section 199, Companies Act, 1913, this order is enforceable as a decree. In 1946 an application for execution was made to this Court and on 12-9-1946, the Registrar transferred the execution to the District Judge of Allahabad. On 23-9-1916, an execution application was made by the Liquidator to the District Judge who transferred it to the Civil Judge. It was in the last mentioned Court that the objection which has to be considered in this appeal was filed by the judgment-debtor. Inter alia it was contended th...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshar Nath and ors. Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All484
Chandiramani, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 16-12-1944, of the learned District Judge, Hardoi, dismissing certain objections to the sale of some property of an insolvent.2. It appears that one Bhurey Lal, who apparently constituted a joint Hindu family with his three sons, the present appellant, was declared insolvent on the petition of a creditor on 23-10-1937. The receiver purporting to seize the assets of the insolvent, sought the permission of the Court to sell certain property of the insolvent. Among others it included (1) landed property to the extent of 2 biswas, 10 biswansis, 7 kachwansis of village Fatehpur, Sheo Ghulam, patti Nokhey Lal, (2) miscellaneous trees in the above village, (3) two she-buffaloes, two bullocks and five goats, and (4) sugar-cane plantation. The three sons, who are now the appellants, objected to the sale of this property on the ground that it was their self-acquired property and could not be sold in satisfaction of the debts of their f...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hafiz Pahalwan Vs. Dr. Bijai Dhari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All578
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Mukat Bebari Lal, defendant 3, and Dr. Bijai Dhari, plaintiff, are brothers. Mukat Behari Lal sold one-fourth share in khewat No. 58, Koil, Aligarh, to Abdul Rauf, defendant 2, who subsequently sold it to Abdul Hafiz, defendant 1. Dr. Bijai Dhari instituted the suit to pre-empt the sales on the ground that there prevailed a custom of preemption in Koil, Aligarh.2. Abdul Hafiz contested the suit on various grounds including one to the effect that the land in suit was situate in mohalla Guriabagh and that no custom of pre-emption prevailed in that mohalla.3. The pleadings of the parties were not clarified by the learned Munsif. He framed an issue to the effect whether there was any custom of pre-emption in mohalla Guriabagh. The contention of the parties before him really amounted to the question whether the locality known as mohalla Guriabagh was a part of mohalla Katra or was an independent mohalla. It does not appear to have been seriously disputed that there was ...
Tag this Judgment!inder Pal Singh Vs. Sarnam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All823
V. Bhargava, J.1. These are two connected appeals which have been filed by the same appellant against the same respondent. These two appeals arise out of two suits which were both for realisation of profits in respect of certain zamindari property. One suit related to the years 1345, 1346 and 1347 Fasli and the other to the years 1348, 1349 and 1350 Fasli. In both the suits, one important question that arose for decision was as to the share possessed by the plaintiff-appellant in the property in respect of which profits were claimed by him. Amongst other shares claimed was one-sixth share in some property which had gone to Sm. Saraswati Kuar, the sister of the plaintiff's grandmother, by virtue of a decree in a suit which Sm. Saraswati Kuar had filed against the plaintiff and others and which was decreed on the basis of an adjustment between the parties to that suit. The appellant had claimed that he was still entitled to that one-sixth share because the adjustment in that suit was not...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand Vs. Ram Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All654
Seth, J. 1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted in the Court of a Munsif to evict the appellant from an accommodation, occupied by him in the town of Baldeo as a tenant of the plffs.-respondents. It is not necessary to recapitulate the pleas raised in defence. It is sufficient to state that the Munsif overruled all of them & decreed the suit. The U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, III (3) of 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was extended to the town of Baldeo during the pendency of the appeal by the deft, against the decree of the Munsif in the lower appellate Court. This enabled the deft, appellant to set up, in the lower appellate Court, an additional plea based on Section 15 of the Act which reads : 'In all suits for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation pending on the date of the commencement of this Act, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 3.'It was contended on his b...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Khan Vs. Mohammad Salim Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All392
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C.2. The applicant applied under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated 1-8-1878, which was executed by Fateh Afzal Khan, grandfather of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendants opposite-parties for a sum of Rs. 259. After the death of Fateh Afzal Khan, his son, Ashraf Khan, executed another mortgage on 30-8-1900 for Rs. 167 in favour of the same mortgagees reciting the existence of the previous mortgage. The plaintiff alleged that limitation for redemption was saved by the acknowledgment about the prior mortgage made in the second mortgage by Fateh Afzal Khan. The defence inter alia was that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The trial Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the entire amount has been paid-up by the usufruct of the property. It, therefore, decreed the suit for redemption without payment of any mortgage mon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »