Allahabad Court August 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.
Dau Dayal Vs. Brij Mohan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All344
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. On 27-9-1932, the defendant usufructuarily mortgaged a house to the plaintiffs respondents. On the same date the defendant executed a qabuliat whereby he promised to pay a sum of Rs. is per month as rent of the house to the mortgagees for a period of 5 years. No lease, as provided under Section 107, T P. Act, signed both by the lessor and the lessee, was executed. The qabuliat was, however, registered- Five years elapsed on 27-9-1937. The defendant did nob vacate the premises nor entered into a fresh agreement. The plaintiffs-respondents then served a notice upon the defendant-appellant to vacate the house. As the defendant did not vacate the house a suit for the ejectment of the defendant was filed on 29 1-1938. In this suit no claim for arrears of rent was included. Then while the ejectment suit was pending, on 19-4-1941 the suit which has given rise to the present appeal, was filed...
Jiwan Singh Vs. Subedar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All616
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a D.H.'s appeal arising out of an application for granting a self-liquidating mortgage under Section 17, U.P. Debt Redemption Act.2. A preliminary decree for foreclosure was passed giving six months' time to pay up the decretal amount. The decretal amount not having been paid, an application was made by the D.H. on 24-10-1945, praying that a self-liquidating mortgage of certain zamindari property belonging to the J.D. [including property which was not mortgaged] be executed in favour of the D.H. The judgment-debtor contested this application and urged that a self-liquidating mortgage could be executed only so far as the mortgaged property was concerned. Both the Courts below accepted the judgment-debtor's contention and allowed the objection. The decree-holder has now come up in second appeal to this Court.3. Section 16, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, provides for execution of decrees against agricultural land of an agriculturist. Where the land of an agriculturist i...
Sm. Shakuntla Devi and anr. Vs. Harish Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All602
P.L. Bhargava J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. The suit was instituted by the plffs.-appellants, Sm. Shakuntla Devi & Sm. Om Piari, against Harish Chandra alias Ramesh Chandra, who had executed an agreement on his own behalf & on behalf of his minor brother, Brijesh Chandra, & also against Ram Gopal, who has subsequently purchased a portion of the property covered by the agreement. The agreement is dated 25-7-1940. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts on the ground that the agreement was vague & incapable of enforcement. Consequently, the plffs. have filed this appeal.2. The facts which led to the institution of the suit are these : Harish Chandra & Brijesh Chandra are the sons of Raj Kumar, who died in the year 1932, leaving two sons & a widow Sm. Brij Rani. Raj Kumar was the owner of two houses, one situate in mohalla Bhoor in Bareilly & the other known as Kothi, in Ujhiani in the district of Budaun. After the death of R...
Raghubir and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All365
Sapru, J.1. By an order dated 29.1.1949 the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut convicted the appellant, Raghubir, under Sections 304, 148 and 323/149, Penal Code. He sentenced him to transportation for life under Section 304, Penal Code, to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, Penal Code, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149, Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. He convicted the remaining nine appellants under Sections 148 and 323/149, Penal Code, and sentenced them each to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 148, Penal Code, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149, Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. On 26-8-1949 this appeal came up before a bench of this Court for hearing. That bench issued notice to the appellants to show cause why their convictions be not altered and the sentences enhanced. Learned counsel for the appellants has appeared to show cause. The case has ...
Gopal Vs. Jagdish Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All413
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by Jagdish Singh and his brother, Vijay Bahadur Singh, the plaintiffs-respondents, to redeem certain ornaments, which had been pawned by their father, Deep Chand, with the appellant Gopal alias Gopla (defendant l), who will hereafter be referred to as the defendant, to secure a loan through Behari (defendant 2). The plaintiffs' case was that their father had pawned three ornaments; but the defendant admitted the pawning of only two ornaments. The Courts below have found that, in fact, only two ornaments were pawned.2. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had failed to allow redemption of the ornaments in spite of notice and the offer to repay the loan. They further alleged that they and their father, Deep Chand, have always been agriculturists and the defendant was a creditor by profession; consequently, they were entitled to relief under the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934.3. The case put forward on behalf of...
Ram Palhawan and ors. Vs. Ummedi Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All300
ORDERSeth, J. 1. The applicants are defendants to a case started under Section 12. U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the redemption of a mortgage dated 13-2-1878. The application for redemption under Section 12 was filed some time in the year 1944. The claim for redemption was contested, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This plea was overruled by the Court of first instance and a decree for redemption was passed without any payment on the finding that the mortgage had been paid from the usufruct. The lower appellate Court has agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by this decision the defendants have come up in revision to this Court and the plea of limitation has been again urged in this Court.2. It is obvious from the dates given above that the application for redemption was made more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage and the claim was, therefore, prima facie, barred by limitation.3. The Court...
Badri Prasad Vs. Sheo Balak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All358
Kidwai, J.1. Sheo Balak instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of a riyaya grove situated on plot No. 1235 in Mahal Chandika Prasad, Pargana Pachchrawan, District Rae Bareli. He claimed that he was entitled to a half share in the grove and that the defendant had cut away two babul trees valued at Rs. 30 in November 1943 which had infringed his rights. He further alleged that he was compelled to institute the suit for partition because Badri Prasad appellant had refused to agree to a private partition.2. Badri Prasad pleaded that he was the sole owner of the grove in suit and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. The trial Court, viz., Munsif Dalmau, framed eight issues of which the first was framed to determine whether the plaintiff was a grove holder of half the plot in suit and the sixth was framed to determine the question whether the civil Court had jurisdiction. The Munsif referred the first issue for a finding to the revenue Court. The revenue Court f...
Sakhawat HusaIn Vs. Rajjab and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All424
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision against an order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra, rejecting his application for setting aside an ex parte decree.2. The plaintiff opposite party sued the applicant for recovery of Rs. 149 as costs of a shed and Rs. 122 as damages, that is, for recovery of Rs. 271 in all. The Court decreed the suit ex parte on 30-10-1946. When the decree was prepared, it only showed the amount decreed as Rs. 149 and a sum of Rs. 34-13-6 as costs. The decree-writer forgot to mention the sum of Rs. 122 which was claimed as damages and which was also decreed. On 13-1-1947, the defendant applicant made two applications to the Court, below. In the first application he prayed that as he intended to file an application for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 30-10-1946, and as he had no cash he may be permitted to furnish a personal security bond of himself (shakshi zamanat khud). The second application made by him was for s...
Mt. Bipti Vs. Kali Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All420
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application against an order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, rejecting an application for the setting aside of an ex parte decree,2. An ex parte decree was passed against the applicant on 20-1-1949. On 4-2-1949 the applicant made an application in which the prayer was as follows:'It is, therefore, prayed that the Court be pleased, after directing the applicant if it approves of the security bond regarding its sufficiency or otherwise, to restore the case to its original number so that the defendant may contest the claim which is entirely incorrect.'3. Along with the application the draft of a security bond was filed. On the same date the Court passed the following order: 'Allowed to file security. Ask for plaintiff's objection if any.' Accordingly, on 19-2-1949, the applicant filed a security bond in terms of the draft submitted by him. Notice was then issued upon the application for the setting aside of the ex parte decree to the plaintiff. When t...
Firm Jawahar Lal Sundar Lal Vs. Firm Jagdish Rai Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All335
Misra, J.1. These revisions are directed against two orders passed by the Munsif of Ramsanehighat, Bara Banki. By the first order dated 20th August 1948, he dismissed the objections of the defendant (firm Jawahar Lal Sundar Lal of Kanpur) against his previous order dated 1st May 1948, referring the suit of the plaintiff (firm Jagdish Rai Baijnath of Bara Banki) to arbitration. Section 115 application No. 119 of 1948 seeks to get that order revised. The second order issued on 18th November 1949, was one of injunction under Section 151, Civil P. C., restraining the defendant from proceeding with a cognate suit which firm Jawahar Lal Sundar Lal had filed at Kanpur against firm Jagdish Rai Baijinath. The Bara Banki suit was for recovery of Rs. 248-6 in respect of goods supplied to the Kanpur firm. It was at first filed on 7th January 1947, in the Court of the Munsif of Ramsanehighat exercising jurisdiction on the Small Cause Court side, but as it was held that the suit was not of a Small C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »