Allahabad Court November 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.
Shib Singh Vs. Sridhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All371
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned District Magistrate of Dehra Dun, recommending that an order, passed under Section 145, Criminal P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mussoorie, be vacated. 2. An application under Section 145, Criminal P. C., was presented by one Shib Singh against one Sridhar. A preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Criminal P. C., was duly passed, and after recording evidence and considering the report of the Commissioner, the learned Magistrate came to the finding that Sridhar had all along been in possession. Ho passed an order forbidding Shib Singh to interfere with his possession. 3. Prima facie, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is a finding of fact which is not ordinarily disturbed in revision, but the learned District Magistrate has rightly pointed out that the learned Magistrate has relied on inadmissible evidence. The Commissioner who was appointed to make a local inspecti...
Mt. Jageshara Vs. Achchaibar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All693
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. These are appeals each by the defendant in a different suit, the same being for redemption of a mortgage. The plaintiffs in the suits were the same, though the defendants were different.2. The suit giving rise to the appeal first mentioned was No. 629 of 1946, of the Court of the Munsif, Mirzapur, in respect of a usufructuary mortgage dated 13-11-1927, made by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant for Rs. 900, the property mortgaged being shops. The suit giving rise to the appeal mentioned later was No. 630 of 1946 of the same Court in respect of a usufructuary mortgage dated 16-5-1925, made by the plaintiffs' father in favour of the defendant for Rs. 1000, the property mortgaged being a house.3. Prior to the filing of these suits the plaintiffs had applied for redemption under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act in the case of each mortgage, but the applications were dismissed on the finding that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists within that Act....
Ram Krishna Vs. Radhamal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All697
Agarwala J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that it may be declared that the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is ultra vires and null and void and the opposite parties be directed by suitable order or writ of mandamus not to enforce any decree or order passed under this Act and the applicant be declared entitled to enjoy his own property for personal use.2. The facts of the case are simple. The applicant is the owner of house No. 112/224 situated in Sarup Nagar. The house was constructed, according to the applicant, for his own use and enjoyment but it was given out on rent temporarily by him to one Asan Das at an agreed rent of Rs. 170 per month arid Asan Das continued as a tenant for five or six months. But during his tenancy he surreptitiously, according to the applicant, let in Radhamal, opposite party No. 1, without the knowledge and consent of the applicant. That, however, appears to have been condoned be...
Phusia Vs. Mohammad Tasadduq HusaIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All684
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application under Order XLI, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, for stay of execution of a decree for possession of land by demolition of certain structures standing thereon. It is admitted that the decree has not yet been put under execution.2. Learned counsel for the decree-holder-opposite party has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application, mainly on the ground that no application for execution having been made, there is no execution which can be stayed; but no authority, except the practice said to have been followed by a learned Judge of this Court, has been cited in support of this contention. On the other hand, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor-applicant has urged that, under Rule 5 aforesaid, an appellate Court has, for sufficient cause, power under the said rule, to stay execution of the decree appealed against whether an application to execute it has been made or not. In support of his contention, learned cou...
Shyam Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. Shagun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All322
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit was filed on 31-10-1946; when the U. P. Ordinance 3 of 1946 was in force, the relief for ejectment being based on the landlord's own requirement of the house. The defendants, who are father and son, executed a rent note in the plaintiff's favour on 23-1-1941, at a monthly rent of Rs. 4 in respect of the house from which their ejectment was sought by the plaintiff. A notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on 9-9-1946, asking them to quit the house by 22-10-1946, and also to pay the arrears of rent. The relief for ejectment was of course, sought on the basis of this notice and the defendants' refusal to leave the house.2. The defence taken was that the notice was bad, that the defendants had sent Rs. 23-1-0 after deducting 0-15-0 as cost of repairs to the plaintiff, this amount being the sent for the six months for which the claim had been made, that the amount had not been ...
Behari Lal Vs. Radhye Shyam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All745
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. The defendant-applicant is a tenant of the plaintiff opposite party in bungalow No. 15, Clive Road, Allahabad, on a rent of Rs. 50/-per month and a conservancy charge of -/12/-per month. The plaintiff brought a suit against him for the recovery of Rs. 477-1-9 being the arrears of rent for the period commencing from the 1st April 1947, and ending with February 20, 1949. The total rent for this period amounted to Rs. 1,167/4/- and it was admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant had paid Rs. 690/2/3.2. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was utterly negligent about the repairs of the bungalow and he (the defendant) was compelled to incur an expenditure of Rs. 477/1/9 to keep the bungalow in reasonable repairs, He claimed that he was entitled under the law to a credit of this amount towards the rent due from him. On this ground, he pleaded that the suit should be dismissed.3. Learned Judge of the Small Causes came to the conclusion that the plaintiff...
Raghunandan Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All668
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. 1. In this case the Panchayati Adalat convicted the applicants and two other persons for offences under Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act and Section 323, Penal Code, and fined each of them Rs. 20 for both the offences. A revision was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banda. He acquitted two of the convicted persons and reduced the fine of the other three, who are the applicants. 2. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, it has been urged that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to Substitute a fresh order under Section 85, Panahayat Raj Act, as that section authorises the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to cancel the jurisdiction of a Panchayati Adalat with regard to any case or to quash the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat at any stage. It is clear, therefore, that once the Sub-Divisional Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, he has to quash the order passed by the Panchayati A...
Mahipal Singh Vs. Bhagwan Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All216
Kidwai, J.1. Bhagwan Din, plaintiff, instituted the suit out of which this appeal- arises in the Court of the Munsif, South Unnao, claiming that he was the sub-tenant of three plots of land in village Hasnapur, in the district of Unnao, which the defendant Mahipal Singh held as tenant-in-chief from the 'taluqdar'. He claimed that his sub-tenancy was a permanent one under an agreement between the father of the defendant and the plaintiff and that a rent of Rs. 34/- had been reserved which he was paying. He further pleaded that the defendant had taken action under Section 175, U. P. Tenancy Act, and that this act cast a cloud on his title as a permanent sub-tenant, which had compelled him to institute the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the defendant is bound by the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant's father and for an injunction directing the defendant not to take proceedings under Section 175, U. P. Tenancy Act.2. The defence was...
Kundan Singh and ors. Vs. Hardan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All501
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a letters patent appeal by defendant 2 and the legal representatives of defendant 1, Mukhtar Singh. The plaintiff respondent Hardan Singh claimed that he was a son of Har Lal Singh who died in the year 1920, that he and his elder brother Mukhtar Singh were members of a joint Hindu family, that on Har Lal Singh's death in 1920 Mukhtar Singh was the head of the family and that on 20-12-1927, he had executed a mortgage in favour of Zabar Singh, defendant 3, which mortgage being without legal necessity was not binding on him (plaintiff). The plaintiff claimed that defendant 2, Tej Singh, had a simple money decree against Har Lal Singh, that in execution of that decree some property had been sold which was purchased by Tej Singh, defendant 2, and that as the plaintiff was not a party to the execution proceedings he was not bound by the same. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed possession of a half share in the property in suit.2. The suit was contested by all t...
Birbhan Vs. Harmukh Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All240
ORDERHarish Chandra and Sapru, JJ. 1. A question of law arises in this case which it seems necessary to refer to a Full Bench. A similar question arose in the case of Mariam v. Amna, 1936 ALL. L. J 1333 and the matter was referred to a Full Bench and the Full Bench gave an answer. Subsequently, a similar point of law arose in the Privy Council case of Ghhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal. 1946 ALL. L J 254 and certain observations contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee seem to throw doubt as to the correctness of the answer given by the Full Bench in Mariam's case.2. We, therefore, direct that this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Full Bench for the decision of the following questions :(1) Does the omission by the next friend of a minor party to a suit to obtain the leave of the Court as required by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order 32 Civil P. C. to enter into an agreement to refer the case to arbitration render the order of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »