Allahabad Court September 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.
Jagdish NaraIn Vs. Rasul Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All29
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and damages. The suit was instituted on 30-1-1948, against four persons, Easool Ahmad Abdul Hasau and Basir, defendants 1 to 3, and Abbas Ali, defendant 4. Defendant 4 was the previous owner of the shop which was the subject-matter of the suit and had transferred it to the plaintiff. Defendant 1 was a tenant of the shop. Defendants 2 and 3 were alleged to be his sub-tenants. Defendants 1 to 3 filed one written statement and defendant 4 filed another. Defendant 4 admitted plaintiff's claim while defendants 1 to 3 contested it mainly on two grounds firstly that the plaintiff had no right of ejecting them and secondly that even if he had such a right, they were entitled to sufficient time to vacate the shop.2. On 6 5 1948, Mr. Saddiqui, pleader for defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 2 and 4 were present. They made a statement to the following effect :'The parties agree today that plaintiff's suit be decreed with ...
Raman Lal Vs. Superintendent Octroi Municipal Board, Allahabad and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All551
Mootham, J.(1) This is an application for a writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.(2) The applicant carries on a small manufacturing business in Allahabad and for purposes of this business he purchases scrap iron from persons outside Allahabad. In September 1950, he purchased a quantity of scrap iron from a firm in Amritsar at a cost of Rs. 527/4/9. The scrap iron was sent to Allahabad by goods train and the relevant railway receipt and invoice were sent to the applicant by post. On 16-9-1950, the applicant sent the railway receipt and the invoice to the Superintendent of the Octroi Department of the Allahabad Municipal Board with a request that these documents be stamped by the Octroi authorities in accordance with the prescribed rules and then be returned to him in order that he may obtain delivery of the goods from the railway company and avoid payment of demurrage. The Octroi Superintendent refused, however, to stamp the railway receipt and invoice unless the appl...
Mt. Girraj Kunwar Vs. Irfan Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All686
Malik, C.J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for pre-emption which were connected in the trial Court and were disposed of by one judgment. Suit No. 507 of 1943 was filed by Waqif Mausoma Syed Bisharat Ali and Suit No. 15 of 1944 was filed by Syed Irfan Ali, son of Syed Bisharat Ali. Suit No. 507 of 1943 was to preempt the sale of a house, by Faiyaz Hussain to Mt. Girraj Kunwar, on 3-12-1942, for Rs. 1,325.The other Suit No. 15 of 1944 was to pre-empt the sale of a house by Abdul Hamid to the same rendee Mt. Girraj Kunwar on 28 8-1943, for Rs. 600.2. To the east of the house in dispute in Suit No. 507 of 1943 and contiguous to it is the house belonging to the plaintiff (wakif) and to the south of the property in dispute in Suit No. 15 of 1944 and contiguous to it is the house belonging to Syed Irfan Ali, the plaintiff to that suit.3. The main question for decision in Suit No. 607 of 1943, out of which Second Appeal No. 609 of 1947 has arisen, is whether the wakif can file a s...
Raj Bahadur Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All593
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. The applicant, Raj Bahadur, filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Kasganj, under Section 5(4), Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 3 of 1947, alleging that the rent agreed upon between him and the landlord was higher than the annual reasonable rent, the agreed rent being Rs. 960/- per annum at Rs. 80/- a month and the annual reasonable rent being Rs. 156/- at Rs. 13/- a month. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the house in suit was constructed after 1-10-1946 and that in view of Section 3A of U.P. Act 3 of 1947 no reasonable annual rent could be said to be fixed with respect to the house, as the District Magistrate had not fixed any rent under thatsection. He did not, therefore, consider anyother fact which would have been necessary to consider if he was going to give relief under Section 5(4).2. The applicant has filed this revision. Two points are urged. One is that the view of the learned Munsif about the necessity of the applicant's first going t...
Girdhar Lal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All787
ORDERBind Bansi Prasad, J. 1. There was a complaint under Sections 352 and 506, Penal Code before a Panchayati Adalat in the district of Aligarh. The complainant was one Wali Mohammad and the accused were three persons, namely, Ramsi, Girdhar Lal and Karim Bux. On 17-3-1950 the Panchayati Adalat gave a judgment by which it sentenced Ramsi to a fine of Rs. 75 and acquitted Girdhar Lal and Karim Bux. Against that judgment there were two applications in revision under Section 85, U. P Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate--one by Ramsi against the orders of his conviction and the other by Wali Mohammad against an order of acquittal of the other two accused. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate heard the two revisions on 12-5-1950 and on that very date he passed the following order : ''Both the parties are aggrieved. The jurisdiction of the Panchayat is cancelled and proceedings are quashed. The case will be heard afresh by the S.R. Magistrate when the case is started....
Ram Sarup Vs. Chimman Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All79
Sapru, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Moradabad under Section 14, Guardians and Wards Act (VIII [8] of 1890) for such orders as this Court may be pleased to pass. The facts which have given rise to it may be stated shortly.2. The dispute in this case is regarding the guardianship of three minor children, two of whom are girls and one a boy. The girls, Bimla Devi and Kapur Devi are, according to the learned Judge, about eleven years and sis years, respectively and the boy Ramkumar, is aged 3 1/2 to four years. Their father is one Ram Sarup who ordinarily resides in Chandausi and their mother is Smt. Dhunia. There is no question in this case regarding any property of the minors. The father and the mother of the children have quarrelled and the mother has left her husband's place. She is at present residing at Hathras and the children are admittedly living with her. She appears to have taken them with her. She left her husband's house some months before the fath...
Bhagwana and ors. Vs. State of U.P. Through Ganga Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All367
ORDERBind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a petition in revision by four persons who were convicted by a Bench of Magistrates of Muzaffarnagar under Sections 323 and 427, Penal Code, and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction under Section 323, Penal Code, and Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act, but set aside the conviction under Section 427, Penal Code.2. The only point argued on behalf of the applicants is that the case was cognizable by a Pan-chayati Adalat and the Bench of the learned Magistrates had no jurisdiction to take cognizance ' of the complaint. Sections 52 and 55, U. P. Pan-chayat Raj Act, 1947, have been relied upon. A perusal of Section 52 (1) (a) will show that while an offence under Section 426 is cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat that under Section 427 is not so cognizable. The difference between Sections 426 and 427, Penal Code, is that the latter section applies where the damage caused by the mischief amounts to RS. 50 o...
Horilal Vs. State Through Parmoon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All572
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. This is a petition in revision against an order acquitting Parmu the opposite party from the charge under Section 411, Penal Code. I have arrived at the conclusion that the petition must be allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken an entirely erroneous view of the law. 2. Briefly the facts are that on the night between 18 and 19-9-1949, a theft by house-breaking took place in the house of one Hori Lal in the village of Purwa Pita Ram. He made a report at the police station at 9 a.m. on the following morning. The total value of the articles alleged to have been stolen was stated to be Rs. 1,400/-. He named certain persons in the report against whom he had suspicion. Parmu, opposite party, was not mentioned in it. At the trial of the case evidence was led to prove that on 22-9-1949, in the course of the investigation, Parmu, opposite party, took the Station Officer, Ibne Ali, to his field and there he dug out a silver Chhail Churi which was one of...
Bijey Singh and ors. Vs. Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1953All365
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The appeal first mentioned was filed by the plaintiffs and the other appeal by the defendants, each in a different suit. The former arose out of suit No. 2227 of 1946 of the Court of Munsif, Meerut, for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 4-4-1946, and in the alternative for recovery of us. 3600 together with interest in circumstances to be hereinafter mentioned. The latter arose out of suit No. 83 of 1947 of the same Court filed by Bhawani Singh, defendant 1, of the earlier suit against the plaintiffs, Bijai Singh and others, of that suit for an injunction restraining the latter from interfering with the possession of the former.2. On 4-8-1943, the property in dispute was sold by its owner Chatersen to one Harbal and others for Rs. 7,200. The case of the plaintiffs in the earlier suit was that they and defendant 2, Run Singh, wanted the property for themselves, and therefore, had a suit filed for pre-emption ostensibly in the name of defendant 1, Bhawa...
Pahlad Das Vs. Ganga Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1951
Reported in: AIR1952All32
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of a shop. On 2 4-1947. the plaintiff obtained permission from the District Magistrate under Section 3, U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, III [8] of 1947, and filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant, being Suit no. 723 of 1947. The suit was decreed for arreara of rent but dismissed for ejectment on the ground that the notice served on the defendant was invalid. Then the plaintiffs served another notice on the defendant dated 3-12-1947, and brought the suit giving rise to the present appeal. The defence taken was that the notice was invalid, that no permission had been obtained in respect of the suit and that the defendant has not been guilty of wilful default in payment of the rent, an allegation on which permission had been obtained by the plaintiffs before the earlier suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it did not lie in the absence of a permission sp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »