Allahabad Court August 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.
Kishenlal Vs. Satya Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All105
P.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of a half share in four items of property--a residential house and shares in three villages. The plaintiff's case was that the property in suit belonged to the joint family consisting of the descendants of Girdhari Lal. The following geneological table gives the descendants of Girdhari Lal, who were alive on the date of the suit, and also indicates the relationship between the parties to this litigation : GIRIDHARI LAL _______________________________|_________________ | | | | Ram Parsad Pokhpal Salig Ram Raghunath (dead) (died 1921) (died issue- (died issue- | | less)=Smt. less)=Smt. Panna Lal Mohan Lal Laraiti(dead) Reoti(dead) (died 1945) (died 1918) =Smt.Kasturi =1. Mt. Bhagwan & 2. Mt. Lachmi Devi(deft.4) Devi Kuer | | | Kishan Lal | (plaintiff) |_______________________________ | | | Satya Parkash Prem Prakash Gokal prakash (deft.1) (deft.2) (deft.3)The plaintiff's case was that as the son o...
Ravi Pratab NaraIn Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All99
V. Bhargava, J.1. Shri Lt. Sahabzada Ravi Pratap Narain Singh, Raja of Rudrapur Estate, Rudrapur, District Deoria, has filed this petition, requesting this Court to issue a direction in the nature of a writ ob cerbiorari calling for all the records relating to the issue of a declaration under Section 8(1) (d) (v). U. P. Court of Warda Act, 1912 (Act iv [4] of 1912) for the assumption of superintendence of his estate by the Court of Wards, to quash the declaration and all the proceedings connected therewith and to direct the opposite party, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Court of Wards, U.P., to hand over the estate of the petitioner to him. This request for issue of a writ of certiorari and other directions was based on two grounds: The first ground was that Section 8(1)(d)(v), U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, was ultra vires inasmuch as it constituted an infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(f) of the Constitution. The second ground wa...
Sudarshan Dayal Vs. Nanhey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All183
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit. Sudarshan Dayal, the plaintiff appellant in Second Appeal No. 843 of 1948, is the Owner of a house in the city of Budaun. It abuts upon a thoroughfare on one side and a blind lane on the other. In regard to the lane his allegation was that it was big Sahan Darwaza and upon it flew the rain water and sullage water from his house. To the north of this lane is the house of the defendant, Nanhey, who is a appellant in Second Appeal No. 469 of 1949. The latter has placed certain obstructions upon this lane. He has built a chabutra and has set up a hub upon it. The plaintiff claims a right of way on this land and on these allegations be brought a suitfor the following reliefs: '(a) By a perpetual injunction the defendants may be restrained not to interfere with the plaintiffs right of way through the lane in dispute and he be ordered to remove the hut. (b) The defendants may be directed to remove the obstruction placed i...
Panna Lal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All657
Desai, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate of the First Class be set aside and he be directed to try the case de novo. 2. The case was under Sections 323 and 506 triable by a Second Class Magistrate. A Bench of Magistrates, invested with Second Class Powers, took cognisance of the offence and recorded some evidence and also framed a charge against the applicants. Subsequently the Bench of Magistrates thought that the case was triable by a First Class Magistrate and stayed proceedings and referred the case to the City Magistrate. The City Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of the First Class Magistrate whose order is in question. When the applicants appeared before the First Class Magistrate, they prayed that the trial should be de novo and that the witnesses should be recalled. The learned Magistrate rejected the application, stating that the applicants did not explain why they wanted a de novo...
imami Vs. Daya Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1951
Reported in: AIR1951All825
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. Imami filed a complaint under Sections 323, 380 and 452, Penal Code against Daya Ram and others. The case was tried by Sri Nahar Singh, Magistrate 1st class, Agra who came to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 380 and 452, Penal Code had been made out while an offence under Section 323 was made out. Ha acquitted the accused of the former two offences and transferred the case to the Panchayati Adalat in view of Section 56, Panchayat Raj Act. On an application by the complainant the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cancelled the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat with regard to this case. This order was passer, under Section 85, Sub-section (1), Clause (a).2. After the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat had been cancelled the Additional District Magistrate sent this case back to Sri Narhar Singh but later, on an application by the accused, he transferred the case to the Court of Sri Har Narain.3. This is an application praying for the transfer of the c...
Sri Babu Lal Vs. B. Ganga Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All48
Agarwala, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a monthly tenant of a shop at Lucknow belonging to him, that the monthly rent was Rs. 18 12 0 that he had obtained the permission of the Rent Control Officer to eject the defendant, that he had served the defendant with a notice to quit by 31-1-1950, that this notice was served on the defendant on 23-12-1949 and that the defendant had cot vacated the shop in spite of notice and that therefore he had to bring the suit for his ejectment. He claimed a sum of Rs. 22 12-0 as arrears of rent. In defence the defendant admitted that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute for a long time and that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 18-12-0 per month. He did not however admit the rest of the allegations with regard to tenancy on the ground that he had no knowledge thereof. He admitted the receipt of the notice to quit but he did not ...
Deep NaraIn and anr. Vs. Bhagauti DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All116
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a pronote. The pronote in suit was executed by the defendants' father Chhaterpal Singh on 13.7.1935. Thereafter Chhaterpal Singh applied under the Encumbered Estates Act. An order under Section 6 of the Act was passed by the Collector on 16-10-1936. Chhaterpal Singh filed a written statement on 20-11-1936, in which he admitted his liability under the pronote. On 16-12-1938, a compromise was arrived at between Chhaterpal Singh and his creditors under which also Chhaterpal Singh admitted his liability. Chhaterpal Singh bad two sons and one nephew, all of whom were members of a joint Hindu family. The nephew and the sons had not applied under the Encumbered Estates Act along with Chhaterpal Singh. Therefore, an apportionment of the liability of the parties under the pronote in suit had to be made. This apportionment was made on 31-1-1941. The Special Judge held that Rs. 100 out...
The Employers' Association of Northern India Vs. the Secretary for Lab ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All109
V. Bhargava, J. 1. In both these writ applications, the petitioners have asked for a writ o mandamus, restraining the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Labour Commissioner, U. P. Kanpur, from enforcing and promulgating Rules. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Rules framed under the Factories Act, 1948, and published in Government Notification no. 2401 (L(sic))/XVIII.543(L)/47, dated 29-6-1949. The petitioner in Writ Application No. 208 of 1950 is the Employers' Association of Northern India which has moved this application on behalf of seventeen sugar factories which are members of the Association. The other application has been moved by the New Victoria Mills Company, Limited, Kanpur. In both these applications, the validity of Rules 5 to 9 just mentioned has been challenged. It is alleged that though these rules purport to be framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 49, Factories Act, 1948, they do not come within the purview of that Sub-section and are consequently ultra vires of the Go...
Sumer GoshaIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All560
ORDERDesai, J.1. The applicants convicted under Section 188, Penal Code for disobeying an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 145 (6), challenge the conviction on the ground that no complaint was made by the Magistrate concerned for their prosecution. It is true that the Magistrate whose order under Section 145 (6) was disobeyed by the applicants has made no complaint of the offence against them. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence on a report of the police to the effect that the applicants had committed the offence. The offence of Section 188, Penal Code has been made cognizable under Home Department Notification No, 1609/ VIII B.U.O. dated 18-1-1949. So the police investigated into the offence committed by the applicants and being satisfied that they had committed it made a report direct to the trial Court and the trial Court took cognizance. 2. Section 190 of the Coda which lays down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on a complaint or a report of ...
Sheo Dayal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All831
ORDERDesai, J. 1. This is an application by Sheo Dayal, etc. questioning the legality of their conviction under Section 323, Penal Code by a First Class Magistrate. They were prosecuted under Section 325, PenalCode, but the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 323, Penal Code only against them. He convicted them under that section only and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine. They went up in appeal to the Additional Sessions; Judge, Etawah, and pleaded that the learned Magistrate's jurisdiction to try the case was barred by Sections 55 and 56, Panchayat Raj Act, An offence under Section 323, Penal Code is within the cognizance of a Panchayati Adalat; vide Section 52 Section 55 forbids a Court from taking cognizance of any case which is cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat unless an order has been passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 85. A Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been given the power under Section 85 to quash the jurisdiction of a Panchayati Adalat with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »