Allahabad Court October 1951 Judgments
Bhagirath Vs. Afaq Rasul and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All207
ORDERKidwai, J.1. Three brothers Aizaz Rasul, Afaq Rasul and Mushtaq Rasul owned house No. 14 in mohalla Mobariz Nagar within the town of Unnao which they used as a family residential house. By a sale deed dated 13-9-1938, Aizaz Rasul sold his 1/3 share to Bhagirath. Thereafter, Aizaz Rasul delivered possession over a locked bothri inside the house to Bhagirath which naturally created difficulties in the way of the continued occupation of the house by the two other brothers and the females of their family. They accordingly left it and went to stay with the in-laws of one of them.2. This state of affairs continued till 1946, when the vendee Bhagirath sued for partition of the house. The two brothers raised many pleas, one of which was that the house was the family residential house and that, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of Section 4, Partition Act.3. The trial Court held that the house was dilapidated and could not be called a residential house at all, much less a family...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Vs. Bhagwan Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1955All339
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption. The suit was instituted by Ram Charan Lal against Mahadeo Prasad (defendant 1) Hakim Dwarka Prasad (defendant 2), Jhan-noo Lal (defendant 3) and Hakim Ram Charan Lal (defendant 4). The property in dispute which consists of a house and a shop, belonged to one Sheo Charan, who died sometime before the year 1904 leaving a widow, Janasa, and two sons, Chheda (major) and Mahadeo (minor). On 1-5-1904, Chheda and Janasa on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son, Mahadeo, executed a usufructuary mortgage deed with a condition of forclosure hypothecating the property aforesaid to Hakim Dwarka Prasad (Ex. 1). The mortgage was for a period of ten years and noredemption was permitted within the said period.The amount borrowed under the mortgage wasRs. 300/- carrying interest at Rs. 2/- per cent. per mensem compoimdable annually. The mortgaged property, which was a 'kham' structure, needed repairs. The mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Thakur Dei Kunwar and ors. Vs. Bishwanath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All251
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for declaration that defendant 1 is the owner of a live anna zamindari share and certain houses in village Bhandewa, district Azamgarh. According to the allegations in the plaint, the name of Mt. Sukhna Kunwar defendant 4 who, as a Hindu widow, is entitled to a mere maintenance, is wrongly entered in the khewat against this zamindari property. 2. There were two brothers, Ran Bahadur and Ram Padarath, the former left a widow Mt. Sukhna Kunwar, defendant 4, and the latter two sons, Bishnath Singh defendant 1 and Har Bhan Bingh. Bishnath Singh has two sons, Ghandra Bhukhan and Durga Prasad, defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The last two defendants presumably live with their father, defendant 1, as members of a joint Hindu family, and the declaration of title sought in the plaint was obviously intended to be in favour of these defendants also. 3. In July 1943, defendant 1 had agreed to sell a three anna 8 pie zamindari share in vil...
Tag this Judgment!Keshodass Wadhumal Advani Vs. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All318
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application for review of a judgment, delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in two connected Civil Revisions, filed under Section 115, Civil P. C. on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and also on the ground that there is other sufficient cause for granting the review. On behalf of the opposity party a preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the application on the ground that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, nor is there any other sufficient cause for granting a review. This objection relates to the merits of the application and will be dealt along with the merits of the case.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the aforesaid revisions were these: The applicant, Sri Keshodass Wadhumal Advani, who is a displaced person from Sind in West Pakistan and is a registered refugee in Lucknow, needed accommodation for his residence. On 14th...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad Vs. President, District Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All681
Sapru, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The precise relief which the applicant seeks is that this Court may be pleased to direct the opposite parties that the order of suspension passed by the Chairman of the District Board shall not be operative. It is further prayed that the opposite parties be prohibited by a writ of prohibition or any other suitable writ or direction from proceeding further with the enquiry initiated against the applicant. A further prayer embodied in the application is that an interim order may be passed restraining the opposite parties from enforcing the suspension order dated 8-9-1950, until the decision of this case. 2. In order to understand the points which have arisen in this case a few facts are necessary. The applicant is the Secretary of the District Board of Mirzapur. His allegation is that in May 1951 he incurred the displeasure of a member of the Board, Shri Narsing Prasad Singh, and that thereafter that member made a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Kunwar Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All598
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. The appeal first mentioned was filed by the defendant in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent regarding a shop together with some rooms on the first floor. There was originally a lease granted by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant on 27-4-1938 for one year. It was provided in the lease that the rent shall be paid from month to month according to the Hindi calendar and that the tenancy was to begin from Baisakh Badi 1, Sambat 1995. Prior to the suit, the plaintiff had served a notice dated 8-12-1944 on the defendant, demanding arrears of rent and also the vacation of the premises. Subsequently another notice was sent on 23-12-1944, in which a certain error in the earlier notice with regard to the real date of the commencement of the lease was sought to be rectified.2. It may be mentioned at once that, in para 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff had alleged that the monthly tenancy, meaning of course the tenancy at will that had come into existence after the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Rudan Vs. Ujagar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All733
Kidwai, J.1. On 2-11-1946, Th. Ujagar Singh and Shrimati Jagrani, his wife, instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises under c against Rudan Chamar alleging that they were in possession of the land of which they were the owners and that Rudan had wrongfully dispossessed them on 10-7-1946. They claimed possession by reason of this dispossession within Six months under Section 9, Specific Relief Act.2. The defence was that the plaintiffs had never been in possession and that the defendant had all along been in possession as a tenant. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs alone were not the owners, but that other co-sharers were also owners and so the suit did not lie.3. The trial court upheld the pleas of the plaintiffs and found that they had been in possession and had been dispossessed within six months of the institution of the suit. One of the pleas taken before the court was that the civil court had no jurisdiction. The learned MunSif found that the suit fell within his j...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Ram Dulari Vs. B. Udai Bhan Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1954All98
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. We see no force in this revision which is directed against an order restoring an application for execution, which was dismissed for default in prosecution in the following circumstances :2. It appears that the decree passed in Suit No. 28 of 1929 was put in execution. The decree-holder had obtained another decree in Suit No. 42 of 1933 and in order to realize the amount due thereunder he applied for rateable distribution out of the proceeds which were to be realised in execution of the earlier decree. The execution of the earlier decree had been transferred to the Collector, and a 'robkar' in connection with the second application was sent to the Collector requesting that the decreeholder, for satisfaction of the second decree, may be allowed rateable distribution.3. While execution proceedings were pending before the Sales Officer, an objection was filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor to the effect that the execution of the second decree had become time-barred. T...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Das Banarsidas Vs. State Through Harshad Rai Natwarlal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All470
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur recommending thatan order passed by the Special Railway Magistrate, First Class, Kanpur purporting to act under Section 523, Criminal P. C. be set aside. The learned Additional District Magistrate, who I must say, has written a well-reasoned and sound order has not recommended that another order be passed instead, but his intention does seem to be that another order be passed by this Court.2. There is no dispute about the facts which are as follows:3. Messrs. Harshad Eai Natvar Lal who are opposite party before me, consigned 240 bags of white zira from Unjha railway station to self at Kanpur. The railway receipt was sent by them to the Bank of Baroda at Kanpur with instructions to deliver it to Messrs. Baldeo Das Sita Ram of Kanpur on their paying RS. 30,000, the price of the goods. Messrs. Baldeo Das Sita Ram took time in finding the necessary money and in the meantime some one, who remains unknown and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shital Prasad and anr. Vs. Mst. Tapesara KurmIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All573
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This second appeal is connected with Civil Revision No. 649 of 1948. It appears that the appellants held a decree against the respondents for possession of certain area of land and for demolition of certain constructions. They put the decree in execution and, according to the concurrent findings of both the Courts below got a larger portion of the constructions demolished than they were entitled to and also succeeded in obtaining possession over a larger area than was awarded to them by the decree. 2. The respondents filed an objection in the execution Court, drawing its attention to the fact that the Amin, while purporting to execute the decree, had gone beyond the terms of the decree. The Court of first instance ordered that possession shall be delivered back to the respondents over the area on which the decree-holders had obtained possession in excess of the terms of the decree. Further, it held that a sum of Rs. 50/- would be paid as damages to the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »