Allahabad Court January 1951 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.
Chotey Lal Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All228
Sankar Saran, J.1. This is an appln. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of mandamus & a writ of prohibition.2. The petnr. has come up to this Ct. with the allegation that he is a citizen of India & is the proprietor of a zamindari in the district of Allahabad & that he & his ancestors have held it for the last 200 years & that he continued to hold it on 26-1-1950. He has moved this Ct. because, according to him, the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Bill is a proposed piece of legislation which completely deprives the appct. of the property which he has a right 'to hold A dispose of' as he likes, that the opposite parties who are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Minister of Revenue & the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh are legally not providing adequate & reasonable compensation & that the acquisition of his zamindari property is not 'an acquisition but a scheme of nationalisation' which is not contemplated under the Constitution, nor can it be said to be an 'acquis...
Mrs. Hazel May Murphy Vs. L.E. Murphy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All180
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Section 17, Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree of the learned District Judge of Saharanpur dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the ground of the latter's adultery and desertion. The suit was not defended and there is no appearance for the respondent in this Court.2. We have read the evidence recorded in the trial Court and are satisfied that the findings of the learned District Judge that the respondent has deserted the petitioner and committed adultery as is alleged in the petition are correct.3. The parties were married at Rawalpindi in 1943 and it appears that it was there that they last resided together. Certainly there is no evidence that, the place where they last resided together was in this State. It is however not in dispute that both the petitioner and the respondent were residing, though not together, at Mussoorie at the time the petition was filed, and the question therefore arises whether the learned...
Lakhan Singh Vs. Sultan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All571
Agarwala, J.1. This is an appeal by the pltf under Section 6A, Court-fees Act.2. The pltf & the defts are members of one family. The pltf claimed that he & the defts were co-sharers in the suit properties which include properties situated in village Jalkhera & those situated in village Hartoli besides other villages. The relief claimed by him was for partition of his share which he alleged was 3/4th. He paid court-fee on 1/4th of the value of his share in the properties. The defence to the suit was that the pltf had exchanged his share in the Jalkhera properties for the deft's share in the Hartoli properties & that, therefore, the pltf was not entitled to any share out of the Jalkhera properties. It was further pleaded that the pltf was out of possession of the Jalkhera properties & the court-fee paid by him was, therefore, deficient. The lower Ct held that the pltf was not in actual possession of the Jalkhera properties since 1920, that the defts had been in exclusive possession there...
B. Narabadeshwari Pd Vs. Sahib Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All561
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a deft-lambardar's appeal in a suit for recovery of profits under Section 230, U. P. Tenancy Act for 1349 to 1351 Fasli.2. In defence it was pleaded 'inter alia' that the claim, so far as 1349 Fasli was concerned, was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. This is the only question with which we are concerned in this appeal. The trial Ct, accepting this plea, dismissed the claim in regard to this particular years, though the claim for other years was decreed.3. On appeal by the pltfs, the claim for this year also, that is 1349 Fasli, was allowed.4. The only question, that we have to determine is whether the claim in regard to 1349 F. was or was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. The lower appellate Ct, as its judgment shows, held that it was not barred because the pltfs, according to the learned Judge, had some justification in omitting to include the claim for 1349 Fasli in the previous suit which had been filed on 7-12-1942. That suit was in respect of t...
Abdul Ghafoor Vs. Abdul Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All845
Misra, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The following two questions of law were referred to the Full Bench :(1) Whether the words 'other sufficient grounds' in Rule 1 (2) (b) of Order 23, Civil P. C., cover grounds other than those mentioned in Rule 1 (2) (a) (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and on what principles interference under Section 115, Civil P. C., can be justified 2. The suit wherein these questions arose was one for a declaration to the effect that an oral gift made by the plaintiff, Abdul Rahman, in favour of the defendant, Abdul Ghafoor, his nephew, in 1942 was invalid and ineffectual and the entry of the defendant's name in the khewat wrong and fictitious. The transfer, it was alleged, was never accepted by the donee and the property which it covered remained throughout with the plaintiff. One of the issues which arose for determination in the case thus was whether the pl...
Hirday NaraIn Rai Vs. Ram Das Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All606
Agarwala, J.1. This is a pltf's. appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain property.2. The facts briefly stated are as follows : Ram Sarup Rai & his son Hirday Narain Rai formed a joint Hindu family owning valuable ancestral zamindari & house property. Ram Sarup Rai contracted debts to the extent of about Rs. 26,000 within 9 years from 1921 to 1930. On 26-2-1929 Hirday Narain Rai, who was then a minor, filed a suit for partition of the family property under the guardianship of his mother, as against his father, Ram Sarup Rai. A preliminary decree was obtained on 29-5-1929 defining the share of minor, Hirday Narain Rai. A final decree was also passed on 14-12-1929 & the house property was partitioned, but no suit for the actual division of the zamindari property was instituted in the Revenue Ct. On 1-9-1929, that is after the preliminary decree had been passed, Ram Sarup Rai borrowed Rs. 100 under a simple bond from Dip Narain Rai. He again borrowed a sum of Rs....
Shri Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Kashi Nath Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All570
Agarwala, J.1. This is a pltf's appeal arising out of an order demanding extra court-fee from them.2. In the suit the pltfs claimed two reliefs, (1) a perpetual injunction restraining defts 5 to 9 from interfering with the user of the land in dispute by the pltfs & other members of the Hindu community & restraining them from making any construction thereon which would have the effect of changing the present condition of the said land, & for (2) a perpetual injunction ordering the defts 5 to 9 to demolish the wall A B & A C & to repair the portions of the temple & Dharamshala alleged to have been dismantled by them. The pltfs valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5100/- & for purposes of payment of court-fee at Rs. 507- for each of the reliefs.3. There was an objection with regard to court-fee. The Ct below held that the value of relief No. 2 was correct but that of relief No. 1 was low. It appointed a comr. to ascertain the value of the land involved in the case. The comr...
Lila Dhar Vs. Chunni and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All574
Agarwala, J.1. This is a pltf's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 139/6/-by sale of the mtged property.2. Jagan, father of defts respondents 1 to 3, executed a simple mtge in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the pltf applt on 8-2-1933 for a sum of Rs. 50/-. The rate of interests was Rs. 1/4/- per cent per mensem simple. The mtged property was an ancestral house; The pltf alleged that this amount was borrowed for a valid family purpose or necessity & that it was binding on the defts resps. The defts case was that the debt was incurred for a new business & not for an ancestral business & hence it was not binding on them. 3. The facts found are that Jagan was a teli (oilman). His father used to carry on the business of an oilman but he himself carried on the business not of an oilman but of an itinerant grocer. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 50/- in order to purchase an oil-crushing machine & a bullock to enable him to carry on the trade of an oilman, presumably with the ...
Ram Swarup Vs. Mst. Kalawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All574
Agarwala, J. 1. These are two connected decree-holder's appeals. The decree-holders are different though the judgment-debtor is the same. A simple money decree was obtained by two decree-holders in the two appeals against one Dayanand. Dayanand died leaving Shrimati Kalawati, his widow, as his legal representative. She was impleaded in execution proceedings. The decree-holders prayed that certain houses be put up for sale in execution proceedings. In proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66, C. P. C.for the settlement of the terms of the sale proclamation, the decree-holders filed an affidavit, slating that there appeared to be a charge on the houses in favour of Shrimati Kalawati and Shrimati Manbhari, mother of the deceased judgment debtor, created by means of a deed dated 25th June 1931. 2. At a later stage Shrimati Kalawati herself came forward with an objection praying that the charge in her favour already stated may be proclaimed at the time of the sale. The decree-holders' reply to t...
Ram Bishal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All431
ORDERHarish Chandra, J. 1. This was a case against the applicants under Sections 143, 447 and 506, Penal Code and was tried by a Magistrate of the first class. The contention is that the offences under Sections 447 and 506, Penal Code being offences cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat under Section 52, Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U.P. Act XXVI [26] of 1947) they could not have been tried by the Magistrate and that therefore the trail of the applicants under those sections was illegal. No doubt section 52 specifies certain offences as being cognizable by a pan hayati Adalat. Section 55, however, runs as follows: 'No Court shall take cognizance of any case or suit which is cognizable under the Act by a PanchayatiAdalat unless an order has been passed by a Sub. Divisional Magistrate o Munsif under Section 85.' It will be noticed that the Section does not prohibit the taking of cognizance of any offence which may be cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat under Section 52 by a Panchayati Adalat. In t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›