Allahabad Court January 1951 Judgments
Dominion of India Through the Secretary I/C of Posts and Telegraph Dep ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All617
ORDERMootham, J.1. This is an appln. in revn. under Section 25, Small Cause Cts. Act. 2. A concern known as the Citizens' Credit Syndicate Ltd. of Bombay drew seven credit notes in favour of one Dhanraj who transferred them by endorsement to the pltf. for a consideration of Rs. 250. The notes were dishonoured on presentation, & upon this fact being brought to the notice of the Syndicate it requested the pltf. to send the notes to it & undertook to pay him the sum of Rs. 250. The pltf. sent the notes to the Syndicate by value payable post stating their value to be Rs. 250. The letter containing the notes was delivered to the addressee but owing to a mistake on the part of the postal authorities they neglected to collect any money from the Syndicate. The pltf. having failed to obtain any redress from the postal authorities, filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 250. The trial Ct. gave the pltf. a decree for the full amount claimed. 3. In this appln. for revision it is contended t...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Karan Singh and ors. Vs. Mukanda Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All621
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is a reference by the Ses. J. of Muzaffarnagar recommending that an order passed by a Mag. in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. be quashed & that the appcts. be held to have been in possession of the land in dispute on the date on which the preliminary order under Section 145(1) was passed. A complaint was made before the S. D. M. Jansath by the appct. alleging that there was an apprehension of a dispute relating to some land & that it was likely to cause a breach of the peace This complaint was made on 19-7-1949. The Sub-divisional Mag. passed the following order on it : 'S.O. to report if there is an apprehension of breach of peace by 9-8-1949 & attach the land if he finds apprehension of breach of peace.'The Station Officer reported that there was an apprehension of breach of peace & attached the land. On receipt of the report the learned Sub-divisional Mag on 9-8-1949, passed the preliminary order recording his satisfaction about the apprehension of a b...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sukra Vs. Ram Harakh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All195
Kidwai, J.1. On 1-8-1928, some trees standing on a plot of land, described as a Tank, & house with trees, were mortgaged to Makhdoom to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 175. The mtgee. sued to enforce his mtge. & obtained a preliminary decree on 24-10-1934. This decree directed that, unless the entire sum due under the mtge. was paid by 24-4-1935, the mortgaged property (which is fully described in the Schedule) or a sufficient portion of it be sold. It further provided :'(3) That if the net proceeds of the sale are insufficient to pay such amount & such subsequent interest & costs in full, the pltf shall be at liberty to apply for a personal decree for the amount of the Balance.'2. This decree was made final on 6-3-1938, & the first appln. for execution was made by the decree-holder on 10-12-1940. On 21-1-1941, this appln. was consigned to the records. A second appln. for execution was made on 11-3-1943. An objection was then taken on 16-4-1943, by the judgment-debtors that they ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prayag NaraIn Mehrotra Vs. Dr. Mangha Ram Kalani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All562
Misra, J.1. There is only one question of jurisdiction involved in this revision & that is whether or not the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Ct Munsif South, Lucknow. The prayer was for fixation of reasonable rent of a part of the house known as Rauni Kothi in Lal Bagh, Lucknow, under Section 5 (4), U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act III (3) of 1947. The portion in occupation of the pltf Dr. Mangharam Kalani, constitutes approximately two-thirds of the kothi. It was rented to him by the owner, Sri Prag Narain Mehrotra, deft-applicant at Rs. 125/- per month on 1-2-1948. The rent fell in arrears from 1-5-1948. The proprietor sued for recovery of ten months' rent & the tenant instituted this counter suit alleging that the transaction was unfair & proper & reasonable rent of the premises in his occupation should not exceed Rs. 26/- per month. The two suits were tried simultaneously. In the suit under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the learned M...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Singh Chilwal and anr. Vs. Dungar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All599
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defts' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain deed of gift was void & for possession. The facts briefly stated are these.2. Dungar Singh, the pltf.-resp., & his wife owned the property in dispute. Both the old persons were issueless & were in search of some one who could look after them & support & maintain them in their old age & to whom they might transfer the property which they possessed. The defts.-applts., husband & wife, persuaded the pltf.-resp. to transfer the property to them & promised that they would Support him in his old age. Accordingly on 23-12-1943, two documents were executed, (1) Ex. P-1, a registered deed by Dungar Singh in favour of the defts.-applts., & (2) Ex. P-2, an unregistered agreement whereby it was agreed that the donees would maintain Dungar Singh & his wife till their death & would perform their obsequies on their deaths, & that in case they failed to do so Dungar Singh might revoke the deed of gift or, in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar Vs. Nathu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All589
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a pltf's. appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- as damages for breach o a covenant in a mtge. deed.2. The deed was executed by the pltf. on 11-11-1934 in favour of Lala Nathu Lal & Faqir Chand, defts.-resps. 1 & 2 respectively, for Rs. 16,000/-. This amount comprised two items, one of Rs. 1292-8/- paid to the mtgor. in cash & the other of Rs. 14,707-8/- left with the mtgees. for payment to Manna Lal, Jagannath & Madho Prasad prior mtgees, under a deed dated 27-4-1933, executed in their favour by the pltf.-applt.3. The later mtge.-deed in favour of defts. 1 & 2 provided that the pltf. mtgor. was to receive Rs. 47 p. m. from those defts. It is agreed that the pltf. in all received Rs. 2115 on this account. The clause relating to the payment of the amount left with the defts. mtgees. to the prior mtgees. was worded thus:'Rs. 14,707-8/- mtge. money relating to the mtge.-deed in favour of Lala Manna Lal, Jagannath & Madho Prasad mtgees. are left with the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Gokul Chand Vs. Banwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All615
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is an appln. by seven men, five of whom are barbers & two, dhobis, from their conviction under Section 6, U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, XIV [14] of 1947. It is laid down in Section 3 of the Act that no person shall'refuse to render to any person merely on the ground that he belongs to a scheduled caste, any service which such person already renders to other Hindus on the terms on which such service is rendered in the ordinary course of business;'person contravening this provision is liable to be punished under Section 6 with imprisonment & fine. It has been found by the Cts. below that the appcts. refused to shave & wash clothes of Chamars. On the passing of the Act, the Chamars served a notice upon the barbers & the dhobis of the village calling upon them to render service to them. When they did not agree, a Panchayat was called by the Chamars; it was attended by the appcts. In the Panchayat the Chamars & other people assembled there, asked the appcts...
Tag this Judgment!Man Pal Vs. Birja and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All611
ORDERMootham, J.1. This is a pltf s appln. in revn.2. The pltf. who is an occupancy tenant, filed a suit against the defts., the opposite parties in this Ct. upon the allegation that they had wrongfully entered upon his land, & upon this ground he sued for recovery of possession & for damages. He also alleged -- & it is not disputed--that he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defts. on two previous occasions & that on each of these occasions he had had to recover possession through the Ct. The present suit was, therefore, the third which he had had to institute against these defts. & accordingly he also asked for a permanent injunction to restrain the defts. from interfering with his possession. This suit he filed in the civil Ct. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether the civil Ct. or the revenue Ct. had jurisdiction & was answered in favour of the latter. & that finding was upheld by the learned Dist. J. on appeal.3. A preliminary objection was taken in this Ct. that no re...
Tag this Judgment!Keka Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All618
Malik, C.J.1. This is a pltf's. appeal. The pltf. filed a suit for realisation of the money due on a mtge. dated 30-6-1933, by sale of the mtged. property. The mtge. deed was executed by seven persons, Sirajuddin, Mohammad Saghir, Abdul, Kabir, Ekram Khan, Sm. Saira, Sm Habibunnisa & Sm. Aisha. Ekram Khan is dead & he is represented by defts. 7 to 11 who are his legal representatives. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 3,000. 2. Various defences were taken, but we are now concerned with only two of them : (1) that Abdul Kabir & Sm. Habibunnisa were minors & they could not, therefore, be parties to the mtge. & (2) that Sm. Saira & Sm. Aisha were pardanashin women & the deed not having been explained to them the execution on their behalf was, therefore, bad. 3. The learned Munsif held that Abdul Kabir & Sm. Habiun-nisa were minors on the date of the mtge. & that it had not been established that Sm. Saira & Sm. Aisha, who were pardanashin women, had executed the mtge. deed in accordance with ...
Tag this Judgment!Har Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Jaisri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All563
Kidwai, J.1. On 7-6-1945, Jagannath sold the property in dispute to Nageshwar & his wife, Ram Pati, by a registered sale deed. On the same day the vendee executed a deed agreeing to reconvey the property to the vendor if the consideration for the sale was returned within 18 years. This deed was also registered on the same day. Thereafter Jaisri instituted a suit for pre-emption of the property sold. While this pre-emption suit was still pending the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 5-8-1946, by Jagannath against Ram Pati, Sheo Prasad, son of Nageshwar, who had died in the meanwhile & Jaisri claiming specific performance of the contract for sale entered into between the vendor and the vendee on 7-6-1945. In the plaint it was pointed out & that the pre-emption suit was pending & that the 13th August, was fixed for its disposal.2. The original vendor admitted the agreement & expressed their readiness to abide by it. Jaisri, however, denied the agreement & pleaded that, in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »