Allahabad Court March 1951 Judgments
Pyare Lal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All180
ORDERBrij Mohan Lal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by two brothers, viz. Pyare Lal and Radhe Lal who are at present undergoing detention under the Preventive Detention Act IV [4] of 1960. 2. The applicants are residents of Afzalgarh in district Bijnor. They own property at Afzalgarh and carry on business at Dhampur. They have been prominent members of the local Congress Committees bat have, of late, fallen out with their old colleagues. Their contention is that they are victims of the machinations of their erstwhile companions. On 7.12.1950 the District Magistrate of Bijnor passed two separate orders detaining each one of the two applicants under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii), Preventive Detention Act. The applicants were taken in custody at Lucknow on 26-1.1950. On 29.12.1960 the State Government passed two separate orders revoking the District Magistrate's orders dated 7-12-1960 and itself directing the detention of each of the two applicants with a view t...
Tag this Judgment!NaIn Singh and ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All196
Mootham, J.1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings for the execution of a decree passed by a learned Munsif.2. The appellants sued the respondent for Rs. 2,000 as damages resulting from the cutting down by the respondent of certain trees in a grove claimed by the appellants as their property; they sued also for an injunction to restrain the respondent from cutting down any more trees. During the pendency of the suit more trees were cut down by the respondent, and ultimately the parties entered into a compromise whereunder, inter alia, the respondent agreed to pay to the appellants the sum of Rs. 9,650 by way of damages, and a decree was passed by the learned Munsif in the terms of this compromise. Neither party challenged the Court's order directing the compromise to be recorded and the decree, therefore, became final.3. Subsequently, the appellants sought to execute this decree, and the respondent then for the first time objected that as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Muns...
Tag this Judgment!Kirpashanker Shastri Vs. L. Banwari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All414
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is a defendants's appeal in a suit for ejectment from a house and for recovery of Rs. 24-4-6 as arrears of rent for & certain period prior to 4-12-1945. There was also a prayer for mesne profits.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had been his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 6.4 6 the tenancy beginning from the 5th of each month. Prior to the suit the plaintiff had, on 25-10-1943, obtained the permission of the Controller to sue for the defendant's ejectment) under Section 14, Meerut House Control Order 1945. He had given a notice to the defendant, terminating the tenancy on 4-12-1945, before he filed the suit.3. The defence taken was that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue without joining the other co sharer, his own brother, that the rent had been paid up to 5-9-1945, that the rent for the subsequent period bad been sent by money order to the plaintiff who had refused it, the defendant being, therefore, entitled to a set off for Rs. 2-14 0 as m...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Maharaj and anr. Vs. Bohra Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All636
Mootham J.1. I have bad the advantage of reading my brother's judgment. The short question is whether, as between the several proprietors of a mahal, the contribution which has to be paid by one proprietor towards the land revenue assessed on the whole mahal is proportionate to the area of his share or whether it is a sum equal to the revenue payable in respect of that share. Stated in this form it appears but fair & equitable that the second alternative should be the rule. Assume, for example, a mahal owned by four proprietors. The share of each is equal in area, & the mahal consists of land of the same class for purposes of assessment to revenue. By virtue of Section 142, Land Revenue Act, the four proprietors are all jointly & severally liable for the payment to Govt. of the whole amount, but as between themselves they will each obviously contribute an equal amount. But now suppose that, although the area of each share remains the same, the land is of varying quality, or that an imp...
Tag this Judgment!Dara Vs. Mathura
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All643
Malik, C.J.1. I agree with the judgments prepared by my learned brothers Misra & Kidwai JJ. that these applns. should be dismissed with costs. 2. A mtgee. Subject to such terms as may have been agreed upon between him & the mtgor., cannot be made liable for anything more than the rent realized by him if he has let out the land to tenants at a reasonable rate. The mtgor. cannot complain that the land was let out to tenants & was not cultivated by the mtgee. himself. If the mtgee. undertakes to cultivate the land it is not merely the land but the seeds, manure etc. used by him & his labour that contribute to the profits made. I have already pointed out in the case of Surju Prasad v. Randhir Singh, 1945 O.A.H C.B. 55 that a tenant not only provides seeds & manure but also gives a lot of his time and labour in ploughing & watering the field & in sowing the crops, & he also takes the risk of the possible failure of crops. It will be most unreasonable to give the mtgor. the whole of the prof...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Ghei and ors. Vs. Shri Ram Kishan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All642
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. A complaint by Shri Ram Kishan Das was filed against four persons for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C., on 23.5.1849. Of the four accused one was the managing director of Aspee (India) Ltd. & the others were said to be its directors. This complaint was eventually dismissed on 23-5-1950 on account of the absence of the complainant & his counsel on the date of hearing.2. A second complaint on the same allegations was then filed on 8-7-1950. This complaint was filed before a Magistrate other than the one who had dismissed the earlier complaint & so was referred to the District Magistrate who sent it to Shri Nahar Singh who had dismissed the complaint. The three directors accused went up in revision against this order of the District Magistrate to the Ses. J. & against his dismissing the revision came to this Court. This Court also rejected the revision on 21-11-1950. The grounds taken in the revision were that the Courts at Aligarh had no jurisdiction over the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Avadhesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All63
Agarwala, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari and mandamus or any other suitable prerogative writ which might be deemed fit and appropriate against the opposite parties quashing the declaration dated 10-12-1949 whereby the applicant was declared in-capable of managing his estate under Section 8 (1) (d), U. P. Court of Wards Act IV [4] of 1912. The facts which are not disputed are as follows.2. The applicant Shri Avadhesh Pratap Singh is a taluqdar of the estate known as Khajurahat, Pargana Paschim Rath, district Faizabad, of which the Government revenue is about RS. 32000. It is entered at No. 136 of list 1 and No. 62 of list 3 of the Oudh Estates Act. The devolution of the estate is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. The applicant came in possession of the estate on or about 12-5-1940, when his father, the previous Taluqdar, died. There are some members of the family of the applicant who, according to the applicant, are merely entitled to maint...
Tag this Judgment!L. Tulsi Ram and ors. Vs. Maiku Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All163
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage. The mort-gage in question (Ex. 1) was executed on 13-1-1930, by Lachhman Prasad and Tulsi Ram in favour of Lalta Prasad and Manni Lal for Rs. 18,000 at 11 annas per cent. per mensem interest. The property covered by the mortgage consisted of five items (vide list A attached to the plaint). Item 1 consists of a shop in Deorhi Agha Mir, Lucknow. Item 2 is a double storeyed house in muhalla Astabal Yahiaganj. Ahata Janashinan, Thana Chauk/Lucknow. Item 3 is a three storeyed house in Finas waligali, Lucknow. Item 4 consists of four shops with plots Nos. 32 and 95 situate at Canning Street, Lucknow, and item 5 is one anna 9 pies 6 3/4 karant zamindari share in muhalla Ismailganj, pargana tahsil and district Lucknow. Of these items 3 and 4 were admittedly redeemed and are no longer the subject-matter of controversy. The only items with which we are concerned are Items 1, 2 and 5. Exhibit 12 is the sale d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikham Vs. Natha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All188
Kidwai, J. 1. On 26-9-1946, Natha, respondent, claiming to be the hereditary tenant of a plot of land in village Udra Pachhlai, instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif (Central) Hardoi for recovery of possession of the plot against Bhikham, appellant, who was said to be a trespasser. Bhikham claimed to be a sub-tenant and an issue was framed to determine this claim and was remitted to the Revenue Court for a finding. 2. While the matter was still before the revenue Court, Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, was amended in such a way that suits even by tenants against treapassera became triable by revenue Courts and consequently the jurisdiction of the civil Court became barred under Section 242, Tenancy Act. 3. The Revenue Court, therefore, returned the cage to the civil Court and the defendant applied to the civil Court pointing out the amendment of the law and praying that no further proceedings be taken by the civil Court, The civil Court overruled this plea and held that it had ju...
Tag this Judgment!Deodat Rai and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All718
Desai, J.1. Application No. 210 is under Sections 435 & 439, Criminal P. C. for revision of an order passed by the Ses. J. of Ballia ordering the applicant to give security under Section 3 (1) (a) (i), D. P. Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers) (Temporary) Act, No. 5 of 1949. On 24-8-1949, a First Class Magistrate issued a notice under Section 3 (1) (a) v(i) calling upon the applicant to show cause why he should not be bound down for being of good behaviour for two years. It was alleged that he is by repute a bad character & is a habitual burglar & dacoit. In the column of particulars are mentioned four suspicions in cases of burglary & dacoity. On the same date the Magistrate passed an order under S. 4 of the Act requiring the applicant to give security for being of good behaviour during the disposal of the proceedings & directing him to be arrested in default. On 28-8-1949, the applicant was arrested in pursuance of this order. He denied the allegations made against him by the polic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »