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.
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All402
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. 1. Moti Lal filed a complaint for various offences against Bhagwan Sahai. The complaint was dismissed for default of the complainant in appearing before the Court, presumably on 22nd May, and the accused were discharged. On the same day the complainant filed a second complaint. The learned Magistrate proceeded against the accused on that complaint. All the accused put in appearance on 29-8-1950. The learned Magistrate ordered for the recording of evidence. That day an application was filed on behalf of the complainant praying that the complainant had put in an application for the restoration of the case on the same day on which the previous case had been disposed of and that there was good cause for the delay, that according to law as enunciated in In re Wasudeo Narayan, A. I. R. 1950 Born. 10, there was no necessity for any fresh trial and that the case be taken up after the stage when the order of dismissal was passed. The learned Magistrate accepted this appl...
Ram Sunder Misra Vs. Triloki Nath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All217
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment under Section 175, U.P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs gave a notice of ejectment on 1st July 1944, claiming that the plaintiffs were hereditary tenants of the plots in suit of which the defendant was a subtenant.2. The defendant filed objections to the ejectment on the ground that he was 'britdari sankalp holder' from 'Shahi' times, his ancestors having purchased this right under a sale deed dated 4th September 1879.3. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were hereditary tenants and the defendant was a sub-tenant and decreed the suit on 1st September 1945.4. The decree was affirmed on 20th March 1946.5. There was a second appeal filed in this Court in the same year. It came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 26th October 1950, who referred it to a. bench to decide the effect of certain sections, of the U.P. Tenancy Amendment Act (10 of 1947) on this appeal.6. Section 26 of this Amendment Act...
Taj Khan and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All369
Wali Ullah, J.1. The question referred to the Pull Bench is this :'Can a High Court in an appeal from conviction under Section 323, Penal Code, alter the conviction of the appellant to one under Section 302, Penal Code, with which he had been charged and, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, after having previously given notice for enhancement of the sentence, enhance the sentence of imprisonment to one of death or transportation for life.'2. The circumstances in which this reference to the Full Bench has come to be made may be briefly indicated. Eight persons in all were put upon their trial for offences under Section 148 and Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Sections 149, Penal Code. As the result of the trial by the Sessions Judge, five of the accused persons were acquitted altogether i.e., of all the charges, while the three appellants were acquitted only of the charges under Section 148 and Sections 302 and 325 read with Section 149, Penal Code. They were, however, convic...
Krishna Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Babban
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All227
Malik, C.J. 1. This case has been referred to a larger Bench by reason of a conflict of opinion between a decision of the Oudh Chief Court in Ram Dat v. Suraj Bux, 1948 Oudh W. N. 13 and of the Allahabad High Court in Bam Ban Bijai Prasad Singh v. Sarjoo Singh A. I. R. (34) 1947 ALL. 188. After having been given the facts, however, we are of opinion that the point does not arise and this appeal must fail on another ground.2. A short pedigree will be helpful in understanding the facts of the case. It runs as follows: UMED SINGH _________________________|______________________ | | Sheoraj Singh(died)=Tejo Kuar Chandrapal Singh | (pre-deceased Sheoraj | Singh)=Indrana Kuar ________|_________________________ | |Rampal singh(died unmarried) Shyam Kaur | Krishnapal SinghThe property belonged to a joint family consisting of Umed Singh, Sheoraj Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Umed Singh died and then Chandrapal Singh died with the result that Sheoraj Singh was left as the sole surviving owner of...
Karhiley and ors. Vs. Hira and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All229
Malik, C.J. 1. This second appeal filed by defendants 1 to 3 was referred to a larger Bench as a point, very similar to the point now raised, was the subject-matter of a decision by a Pull Bench of this Court. One Lachman had five sons. We are not concerned with all the five, but one of his sons was Badan who died in the year 1938 leaving a widow Sm. Badana. Sm. Badana died in the year 1941 and after her death the names of the defendants, sons of Himma, brother of Badan, were mutated over a grove which it has now been found was the self-acquired property of Badan. At the time of Badan's death he had two brothers, Churai and Himma, surviving him. He bad another brother Ujagar who had predeceased him, whose son Chunnu is defendant 5. Churai had four sons and plaintiffs are three of the sons of Churai. The plaintiffs claimed a three-fourth out of one third share in this grove on the ground that on the death of Sm. Badan succession opened and the plaintiffs were entitled to the share menti...
Sm. Shyama Devi Vs. Sadan Sewak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All380
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur recommending that an order passed by a learned Honorary Special Magistrate Second Class of Kanpur setting aside an order of dismissal of a complaint and restoring the said complaint be set aside. 2. It appears that the learned Magistrate was hearing the complaint under Section 427, Penal Code. The case had been adjourned to 9-10-1950. On that day complainant was found absent and the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Subsequently the complainant put in appearance and made an application on the same day for the complaint being restored. The learned Magistrate allowed this prayer and restored this complaint. 3. It may be pointed out that unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure contains no provision for restoration of complaints dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant. It is certainly open to a complainant to...
Deokinandan and ors. Vs. Jhotha Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All224
Malik, C.J. 1. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, for recovery of a sum of RS. 7,645.43. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants were plaintiffs' Commission Agents working at Collectorganj, Kanpur, and the plaintiffs had sent to the defendants mustard seed for sale, but as the price was rising they had instructed the defendants not to sell the goods till farther instructions, and contrary to the directions given by the plaintiffs the defendants sold the goods which caused a loss of Rs. 7,345-4-3 to the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs were entitled to recover. The suit was decreed in part on 17 11-1945, and a decree for Rs. 3,039 9-0 was passed in plaintiffs' favour. The defendants thereafter filed an application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C., on 27-8-1946, and claimed that the decretal amount should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 426-15-0. Court fee of only Rs. 0.15 0 was paid on the application as the defendants' Contention was that ...
Fazal-ul Rahim Khan Vs. Nawal Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All226
Malik, C.J. 1. One Abdul Bashir Khan was indebted to two persons, Girdhari Lal and Fazal-ul Rahim Khan. Both of them had obtained decree against Abdul Bashir Khan. On 9th September 1942, Abdul Bashir Khan applied for permission to sell his property to pay off his two creditors. This application was under the U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (Act No. XIV of 1940). On 21st September 1942, Girdhari Lal put his decree under execution and applied for attachment and sale of the property in dispute. On 28th September 1942, Fazal-ul Rahim Khan, the other creditor also applied for execution of his decree and claimed rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C. On 27th November 1942, an order was passed under Order 21, Rule 54, Civil P. C. to the effect that the property be attached and directing the judgment debtor not to transferthe property. On 30th November 1942, the permission sought for by the application, dated 9th September 1942, was granted. On 2nd December 1942, Abdul...
VakiluddIn and ors. Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All527
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession over plot 584, old, corresponding to plot 234/1, new measuring 13 bighas and 8 biswas, in village Mohammadpur, District Allahabad. 2. This relief was claimed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that, as residents of the village, they bad acquired certain rights by custom and that, therefore, the defendants were not entitled to take possession of the plot. The plaintiffs had, in the first instance, taken proceedings against the defendants under Section 145, Criminal P.G., but, having failed in the criminal Court, filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal. 3. The defence taken by defendant 1, who was the only contesting defendant was that on 19-4-1944, he had obtained a lease of the plot which belonged to Rani Gomti Bibi of Phulpur fromthe Court of Wards, in charge of her estate, and that the plaintiffs, not being entitled to the rights mentioned in t...
Radhey Lal Vs. Mt. Lareti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1954All150
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal. The suit in which the decree in execution was passed had been filed on September 17, 1945, for ejectment and arrears of rent at Rs. 3-8-0 per mensem from June 30, to September 9, 1945. The decree in the suit was passed with the consent of the parties on January 2, 1947. It provided that the judgment-debtor appellant would vacate the house by August 1, 1947, and that, if he did not do so, the decree-holder-respondent would be entitled to execute the decree for ejectment. The decree-holder's right to execute the decree after this date was not subject to any condition whatsoever, inasmuch as he could claim the defendant's ejectment after that date without any restrictions. As regards the rent payable to the plaintiff-decree-holder it was agreed that the defendant was entitled to deduct the amount spent by him on repairs, that the said amount would be determined by one Mr. Raghubar Sahai Raizada, counsel appearing for the plaintiff in...