Allahabad Court August 1951 Judgments
Ajodhia Singh Vs. Data DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All544
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The suit was instituted in the revenue Court under Section 180, D. P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiff alleged that on 4-7-1928, he mortgaged his tenancy plots with Ajodhia Singh, defendant 1, and placed him in possession, that Srimati Ram Pati, defendant 2, was wife of Ajodhia Singh and her name recorded in the revenue papers without any right, that the mortgage money had been paid up from the usufruct of the land in suit, that the plaintiff approached the mortgagee in July, 1949, with the mortgage consideration for redemption of the land in suit, but that the defendant refused either to accept the money or to redeem the land in suit. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession may be passed against the defendants and damages as allowed by law may also be awarded to him. Defendant 2 did not put up any defence. The salt was contested by defendant 1 alone. He pleaded that he was not a mortgagee...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prasad Vs. Hazari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All509
Malik, C.J.1. There was a reference to arbitration out of Court. The arbitrators gave an award & filed an application in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, that the award be made a rule of the Court. This was opposed on various grounds. We are not concerned with the other grounds, but one ground that came up to this Court was the question whether it was open to the arbitrators to hold that Madho Ram had no share in the partnership assets as he was not a partner. The trial Court had decided the contention against the objectors and had made the award a rule of the Court. In appeal this Court came to the conclusion that Madho Ram was a party to the partnership deed, that the reference was made by Hazari Lal, Jagannath Prasad and Madho Ram as partners, that the reference itself showed that it was admitted that Madho Ram was a partner and that it was, therefore, not open to the arbitrators to go into the question whet...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Madan Mohan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All108
Malik, C.J. 1. This is an application filed by one Baijnath Prasad that proceedings for contempt of Court be taken against the opposite-party, Madan Mohan Das who is an Honorary Magistrate in Chunar. Madan Mohan Das made two reports in the police station Chunar against Baijnath Prasad and others on 26-2 and 27-2-1950, and allegations were made that Baijnath Prasad and others were guilty of offences under Sections 332/ 353, Penal Code, and that action be taken against them under Section 107/117, Criminal P. C.The Station Officer made enquiries and on 13-4-1950, he reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the persons mentioned in the reports should be proceeded against. This challan does not appear to have reached the Court of the Magistrate and wa3 probably lost in transit. After waiting for some time, the opposite party wrote a letter to the Magistrate on 9-6-1950, to which exception has been taken by the applicant. In this letter the applicant set out the facts and then said; 'I...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Ram Vs. State Through the Notified Area
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All40
Desai, J. 1. The question 'When a person residing in an area to which provisions of Sections 180 and 185 Municipalities Act, 1916, have been extended under Government Notification No. 72 MC/XI 70A dated 6-6-1917, gives notice to the Notified Area Committee of his intention to erect a building under Section 178 of the Act, and commences to erect it before the committee passes an order contemplated by Section 180 (1) and (2), and without calling its attention to its omission or neglect to make it in accordance with Sub-section (8) of Section 180, is he liable to be prosecuted under Section 185 o the Act as amended by Section 15, United Provinces Act II[2] of 1919?' referred to us has arisen in these circumstances : Mani Ram applicant, intending to make certain constructions within the limits of the Notified Area, Mahoba, intimated his intention to the Notified Area Committee, as required under Section 178, Municipalities Act, on 27-1-1948, shortly after without waiting for any orders of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dalchand Chittar Mal Vs. Commr., Food and Civil Supplies and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All61
V. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application by a firm Messrs Dalchand Chittar Mal of Aligarh for the issue of writs and directions under Article 326 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the opposite parties cancelling the petitioners' appointment as District Importer at Aligarh and for directing the opposite parties to grant to the petitioners all permits and facilities to which they are entitled under the license in form B, issued under the U. P. Controlled Cotton, Cloth and Yarn Dealers' Licensing Order, 1948. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the petitioners were holders of a license in form B, issued by the District Magistrate of Aligarh in their favour. The petitioners alleged that they had some differences with one Shri P. C. Sharma, Secretary, City Congress Committee, Hathras and influenced by Shri P. C. Sharma the opposite parties had passed an order terminating the petitioners' appointment as Importer for Aligarh District. This cancellation amounted...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Naresh and anr. Vs. Ganesh Mistri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All680
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors against a decision given in execution proceedings by the learned District Judge of Lucknow upsetting a decision of the learned Munsif Havali, Lucknow. 2. The respondent brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1300 against the appellants. During the pendency of the suit the appellants' residential house situate in village Arjunpur and a grovewere attached before judgment. On the date of hearing, the suit was compromised and on the basis of that compromise the following judgment was delivered by the Court: 'The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs. 1,100 only on admission of the defendants with proportionate costson uncontested basis. Future interest shall run at 3 per cent. per annum after the expiry of 6 months, if the amount is not paid within 6 months. The house and the grove which have been attached shall continue to be attached till the amount is paid off.'No payment was made by the appellants, The result ...
Tag this Judgment!Tikai Chamar Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All398
Chandiramani, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the appellate decree of Sri Khadim Ali, Additional Civil Judge, Faizabad, dated 12-11-1946.2. The plaintiff Mohammad Ibrahim Khan alleged that he was a grove-holder of the grove inplot No. 1808 situated in village Sheotara and that he had been dispossessed from the same in 1945 as a result of certain proceedings for correction of papers in the Revenue Court. He accordingly sought to recover possession of the grove. The defence was that the defendant Tikai Chamar was the grove-holder and the matter had been decided in his favour in the Revenue Court and this finding was final and could not be questioned. The question of jurisdiction was also raised and it was apparently decided in the trial Court against the defendant. The issue as to whether the plaintiff was a grove-holder or not was sent to the Revenue Court, and the Revenue Court held that the plaintiff is a grove-holder. In these circumstances the plaintiff's suit was decreed...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Asharfi Lal Ramdeo and ors. Vs. Firm Ganeshi Ram Jagarnath and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All546
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal. The parties to this appeal are two firms, firm Aaharfi Lal Ramdeo, the plaintiffs appellants, and firm Ganeshi Ram Jagarnath, the defendants-respondents, which carry on business in Pande Bazar in the district of Basti. The two firms had dealings with each other. The plaintiff-firm instituted a suit, No. 12 of 1943, against the defendant-firm in the Court of the Munsif of Basti to recover a sum of Rs. 500 and odd said to be due as balance of account on the basis of bahi Khatas. Another Suit No. 889 of 1942 was instituted by the defendant firm against the plaintiff-firm in the Court of the Civil Judge of Basti exercising the powers of Judge, Small Cause Court, for recovery of Rs. 205-9-9 said to be due on balance of account on the basis of bahi Khatas. Both the suits were separately referred to the arbitration of Hiralal and the arbitrator filed a separate award in the two suits. The award Sled in one suit was the exact copy of the award ...
Tag this Judgment!Sewa Singh Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All50
ORDERDesai, J.1. This and criminal Revisions Nos. 1602 of 1950 and 1603 of 1950 are from judgments of the Sessions Judge of Banaras confirming the convictions and the sentences of the applicant by a First Class Magistrate. In this revision the applicant has been convicted under Section 19 (e), Arms Act, for being in possession of a Kirpan and a sword without a license on 18-12-1949. In Revision no. 1602 the applicant has been convicted under SECTIONS 323 and 324, Penal Code for causing hurt to Mewa Lal with a spear on 18-12-49. In Revision No. 1603 he has been convicted under Sections 352 and 447, Penal Code for committing trespass upon a piece of land and assaulting Musafir Singh on 15-11-49. I have beard these three applications together because an important question of law, common to all, has been raised. The applicant appealed from his conviction to the Sessions Judge of Banaras. The appeals came up for hearing on 9-10-1950, It is alleged on behalf of the applicant that before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rex Vs. Dhyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All53
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference, under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut, made on the application of Dhyan Singh, who was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. On 6th September 1948, Section I. Gurdial Singh had recovered three weapons, of which two have been described as swords and one as a knife, from Dhyan Singh's tent in Ghaziabad. Dhyan Singh denied the recovery of the weapons; butthe recovery has been duly proved and that fact is no longer disputed.3. The learned Magistrate held that the knife had a blade only 4' long, so its possession without a license was not an offence. But he found that the possession without a license of the swords recovered was an offence punishable under Section 19 (f), Arms Act. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced Dhyan Singh as stated above.4. In the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »