Allahabad Court January 1952 Judgments
Ram Adhar Vs. Nem Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All139
Mushtaq Ahmad, J. 1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal, and the only question to be decided is one of limitation.2. The decree in question was one on a simple mortgage dated the 12th August 1926,and was passed on a compromise fixing instalments on the 4th November 1931, No instalments having been paid, the decree-holder applied for the preparation of a final decree on the 5th November 1934, the previous day being a Sunday. This application, it is conceded, was thus made on the last day of limitation and was, therefore, within time.3. On the 5th December 1934, the court ordered that a final decree be prepared, and such a decree was prepared on the 19th February 1935.4. On the 19th October 1938, the first application for execution was made. This was obviously after the expiry of three years from the date of the final decree and had, therefore, been made beyond time. The application having been dismissed for default, a second application, also dismissed for default, and then a third, lik...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Rambali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All163
Agarwala, J. 1. These are two connected appeals arising out of the same case. 2. Seventeen persons, were prosecuted for committing a riot and for committing murder of one Babua Shambhu Prasad Singh, zamindar of village Rajhai, in the district of Gorakhpur. Of these only six, namely, Prag Chauthi, Girgit, Adhare Singh, Mangru and Budhram, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 143 and 302/140, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. under the former section and to transportation for life under the latter sections. The rest were acquitted. Those who were convicted have appealed to this Court and their appeal is No. 639 of 1949. Out of the eleven acquitted persons, the Government has appealed against the acquittal of three persons only, namely, Rambali, Jogi and Pirthi, and its appeal is No. 48 of 1950. 3. The incident took place at about noon on 3rd October 1948. The prosecution evidence does not clearly disclose what the origin of the incident was. On the date in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Sadho Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Baij Nath Vyas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All840
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in the application is that an order, dated 3-7-1951, made by the City Magistrate of Banaras, under Section 522, Criminal P. C., be set aside. The order was made in the following circamstancea: The applicants, Sadho Singh, Badri Koeri, and Sheo Nath Koeri, were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 426, 447 and 506, Penal Code on a complaint filed by Baij Nath Vyas. They were tried by a Panchayati Adalat. The Adalat found Sadho Singh guilty under Sections 426 and 447, Penal Code, and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. Sadho I Singh was found not guilty under Section 506, Penal Code. The other two applicants were not found guilty of any offence, and they were acquitted. It appears that after the case against the applicants had been decided by the Panchayati Adalat, an application was moved before the City Magistrate of Banaras, for an order under Section 522, Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Saran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All716
S.B. Chandiramani, J. 1. It appears that on the 10th April, 1934, Debi Singh, one of the appellants, executed a deed described as a deed of conditional sale in favour of one Atbal Singh (predecessor of some of the respondents) in respect of a one-third share of mahal Chaudhri Harpal Singh in village Bangarmau, District Unnao. Debi Singh applied under Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act showing the property covered thereby as his own. He claimed that the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed of 1934 was in fact a mortgage by conditional sale. Atbal Singh objected saying that it was an out and out sale subject to a condition of repurchase within a specified time. The Special Judge held that Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act when correctly construed does not indicate that every deed of sale containing a condition for repurchase operated only as a deed of mortgage and the true test still is the intention of the parties which may be gathered from the language of the deed an...
Tag this Judgment!Tajpal Singh and ors. Vs. Ganga Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All808
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. Both these are appeals by the applicants in a case under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act XXVII [27] of 1934.2. The appellants applied under the said section for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 10.7.1928 made by their father Tikam Singh in favour of one Ganga Sahai, the original respondent, after whose death his legal representatives were brought on the record. The mortgage was for Rs. 6,337 and was executed to pay off a decree No. 140 of 1926 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bulandshahr, which had been passed on foot of a simple mortgage bond dated 4-11-1920, executed by the same mortgagor in favour of the same mortgagee. This earlier mortgage too had been executed in lieu of amounts due on certain promissory notes of previous dates.3. The appellants' case was that the entire mortgage money had been paid off from the usufruct of the property, whereas the mortgagee pleaded that a sum of Rs. 5059-9-7 was still due on that account from th...
Tag this Judgment!Bachcha Singh and ors. Vs. Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All236
Beg, J.1. This is a second rent appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and damages filed under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act. Subsequent to the filing of the suit the plaintiffs amended their plaint by adding an alternative prayer that in case the defendants were found to have acquired tenancy rights under Section 180, Sub-clause (2), U. P. Tenancy Act, the Court might assess rent on the defendants under Section 94, U. P. Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs' suit related to three plots situate in village Purab Patti, district Pratapgarh.2. The suit was contested by the defendants mainly on the ground that they had become the proprietors of the disputed property by adverse possession. As the case raised a question of proprietary title, the revenue Court in which the suit was filed referred the question of proprietary title to the Munsif. The civil Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had not acquired proprietary title by adverse possession.3. The revenue Court adopted the findi...
Tag this Judgment!Kaviraj Rai Vs. Sheo Darshan Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All368
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Civil Judge Basti, re-admitting an appeal against the applicant.2. The appeal was dismissed in default on 16-2-1918. Application for re-admitting it was made on 21-3-1948.3. It was alleged in the application and was supported by an affidavit that the appellant opposite party waited till late in the day on 17-12-1947 to know the next date fixed for the hearing, that no date was fixed and he went away, leaving instructions with his counsel's clerk to inform the date to be fixed in the case, that he did not know that the appeal was fixed for hearing on the 16th February and that he learnt about the dismissal of the appeal on 27-3-1946. Ho further alleged in the application that he was told by the clerk, that a post-card had been sent to him communicating the date of hearing, but that he did not receive it. The respondent applicant objected to the re. admission of the appeal, stating in the objection that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhai Lal Vs. Brij Nandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All509
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a revision against the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 300 paid by him to the defendant and for which the defendant had executed a promissory note and a receipt. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the promissory note was improperly stamped and that oral evidence to prove the loan transaction was inadmissible in view of the fact that the promissory note contained all the terms of the contract.2. The material portion of the promissory note in suit is in these terms :'I have at this time borrowed Rs. 300 half of which Rs. 150 in cash according to my needs from you, I shall pay this amount of yours with interest at eight annas per cent. per mensem on demand and have, therefore, written these few sentences by way of a stamped promissory note so that they be of use in time of need.'These expressions to nay mind are exactly those which were the subject matter of discussion in the case re...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ishwar Dei Vs. Chhedu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All802
ORDERNasir Ullah Beg, J.1. This is a revision application arising out of the plaintiff's suit for dissolution of marriage.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had after his marriage with the plaintiff treated her cruelly. The plaintiff who was the wife levelled various charges-against the defendant. The defendant was alleged to have ill-treated her. It was also alleged that the defendant was guilty of adultery and immorality. The plaintiff claimed a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of a custom prevalent in the Murao community to which the parties belonged and according to which the wife was entitled to divorce the husband.The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff against him. The case of the defendant was that the plaintiff used to give away grain to her parents. The defendant took objection to it and started keeping a watch over it. This annoyed the plaintiff who deserted the defendant and the present suit is the res...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar DIn and ors. Vs. Ch. Mohd. Ishaq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All496
ORDERBeg, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff. The suit was brought by the plaintiff on the allegation that he, along with his two brothers, was the absolute owner of the plots in dispute. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff was in full possession of the said plots but defendants 1 to 7 were threatening to take forcible possession of the same. The plaintiff also alleged that defendants 1 to 7 were claiming their title through defendant 8, who was putting himself up as mutwalli, under a certain waqf and against whom the plaintiff had got a decree deciding the question in favour of the plaintiff and declaring that the said waqf was not valid. The plaint accordingly claimed a relief of permanent injunction against all the defendants.2. The written statement of defendants 1 to 7 alleged that the defendants were tenants of the plots in dispute through defendant 8, who...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »