Allahabad Court December 1952 Judgments
Moti Ram Vs. Smt. Hasina Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All346
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is an application in revision by a tenant. An application for ejectment from an accommodation was presented against him under Section 7B, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), by the landlord. He deposited the rent in Court under Sub-section (7) of the said section and filed an objection about the rate of rent. The landlord was called upon by the learned Munsif to pay the court-fee which he did. Thereafter, the proceedings were converted under Sub-section (8) into a suit. The learned Munsif held a trial and recorded a finding that the landlord's version about the rate of rent was correct. He gave him a decree for the amount claimed, i.e., RS. 227-8-0. It is against this decision that this petition of revision has been filed.2. The contention put forward on behalf of the applicant (tenant) is that the moment the proceedings were converted into a suit the learned Munsif lost jurisdiction to try it. It is urged that the plaint sho...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Shanker and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All652
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Sheo Shanker alias Tanu and Sheo Shankar alias Bachchu appeal against their conviction and sentence of death under Section 302, I. P.C. for having committed the murder of Girdhari and Ram Singli on the morning of 4-1-1951, near Achalganj railway station.2. The prosecution story is that these two accused appellants and one unknown person lay in ambush in the grove of Sheo Ram Brahman about three furlongs by the passage from the railway station and, shot at Girdhari and Ram Singh and their companions when they had passed this grove on their way from village Bethar to the railway station. Two shots were fired. It issaid that the second shot hit Girdhari on the legs. Girdhari and Ram Singh ran towards the station. Their companions also ran in the same direction but along the sides of the passage. The accused's party pursued them and the men with guns kept on firing. Ram Singh was hit with shots just in front of the quarters of Abdul Ghani, signal inspector. He fell dow...
Tag this Judgment!Hardeo Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All382
ORDERHarish Chandra, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar in a case decided by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 145, Criminal P. C. One Herdeva filed a complaint under Section 145, Criminal P. C., against Ram Lal and others alleging that the opposite party had forcibly taken possession of certain plots over which stood a temple of the deity Kali Singh and were taking the offerings by ousting the complainant, his brother Kanshiram and the manager, Baldeodatt. The opposite party in their written statement stated that the parties were entitled to receive offerings according to their respective shares. Evidence was recorded and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint erroneously holding that Section 145 only contemplated a dispute between two parties each of which asserted the right to hold exclusive possession of the property as against the other and not a dispute between a party claiming joint possession with ...
Tag this Judgment!Nageshar Tewari Vs. Dwarka Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All541
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiff's suit (appeal?) against a decision of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition of four plots in which the plaintiff claimed that he had under-proprietary rights. The plots in dispute are Nos.725, 730, 739 and 856. A small pedigree will help in understanding the facts of the case. LOTAN __________________________|__________________ | | Kunj Behari Ram Autar | _______________________________|_______________________ | | | | | | | Nageshwar Baleshwar Maheshwar Lalji Deenbandh Gajadhar Tulshi Ram Plaintiff Defendant 1 | | | Ram Jug Sri Dutta Defendant 3 | Defendant 2 | ________________________________________________| | | Ram Samujh=Lakhraji Ganpat Defendant 4 | ____________________|___________ | | Deo Datta Tribhuwan Datta Defendant 5 Defendant 62. The family was joint and in the year 1913 Kunj Behari filed a suit No. 16 of 1913 against the sons & grandsons of Ram Autar, Ram Autar having died, for a partition. The plaintiff alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!Loknath Misir and ors. Vs. Smt. Daulta Kuer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All503
Brij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendants mortgagees arising out of a claim brought under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was a possessory mortgage and was executed on 28-5-1909 by one Sm. Daulata Kunwar in favour of two persons, viz. Gaya Rai and Prayag Dube. Padam Nath, the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicants, acquired the mortgagee rights by pre-emption and took possession of the mortgaged property as a usufructuary mortgagee. Later on, Sm. Daulata Kunwar executed a lease of the mortgaged property in favour of two persons, viz., Jagarnath Singh and Sri Bahadur Singh. The lessees brought a suit No. 231 of 1922 for redemption of the mortgage. Shrimati Daulata Kunwar was arrayed as a defendant to that suit. The predecessors of the present applicants were the main defendants to that suit. On 27-9-1923 the suit was decreed. A preliminary decree was prepared under Order 34, Rule 7 directing the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Tewari Vs. Ram Chander Sharma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All354
Sapru, J.1. This application has been presented on behalf of Sri Ram Narain Tewari's trust by his managing trustee, Har Narain Swami. The dispute relates to house No. 60/8 Purani Dal Mandi, Kanpur. Of this house the trust is admittedly ther owner. According to the case put forward by the trust in the affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of it by Lokendra Bahadur, the pairokar of the trust, the trust was occupying a substantial portion of this house. The other portion was in the occupation of one Shyam Lal Yaid. He died and his nephew had to leave the house.2. It is necessary to go into the circumstanceswhich compelled him to leave the house. On thehouse being vacated the trust started, accordingto the affidavit filed by it, immediately takingoccupation : and wrote to the Rent Control andEviction Officer on 10-9-1951, that it had startedoccupying the house. An application was also sentby the trust to the Rent Control and EvictionOfficer for the allotment of that portion to it.The R...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Das Vs. Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All465
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226of the Constitution by a member of theCo-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, District Etah,in which the prayer is as follows: 'A writ of mandamus or other suitable writ,order or direction be issued to the oppositeparties restraining them from taking anysteps to recover the amount of Rs. 6,289/9/6;or a suitable writ or direction be issuedreferring the matter for decision to theRegistrar or the arbitrators to be named byhim.' 2. The opposite parties in the application are: (1) The Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, District Etah; (2) The District Co-operative Officer, Etah; (3) The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lucknow; (4) The Collector of Etah, and; (5) The State of Uttar Pradesh.3. The relevant facts are these: The applicant is a member of the Co-operative Seeds Store, Sakit, and in his capacity as such he borrowed 200 maunds of wheat and 10 maunds of barley on 7-11-1950. The main terms of the agreement of loan were that the applicant was to...
Tag this Judgment!Girja Prasad and ors. Vs. Zalim Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All340
Agarwala, J. 1. The complaint against the applicantswhich was presented before the Panchayati Adalat of Bhagwatipur was that the applicants had cut away a tree belonging to the complainant and standing in his land and that when the complainant remonstrated with the applicants he was assaulted with lathis by them. The tree was claimed by the applicants to belong to them. The Pancbayati Adalat went into the matter and found that the tree belonged to the complainant and that the applicants were not justified in cutting it. Each of the applicants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25. The applicants went up in revision to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revision was dismissed.2. In this application before me it has been urged that the constitution of the Panchayati Adalat which tried the case was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as only one panch out of the five panches was taken from the village in whicht...
Tag this Judgment!Chatru and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ708
Chowdhry, J.C.1. Chatru, Bhandaru, Biru, Dittu and Mehta were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Bilaspur under Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of one Bhangi, and the said five person and Bhangi's son Maru under Section 201, Penal Code, for causing disappearance of evidence of the said offence by burying the dead body. He acquitted them of the offence under Section 302 but convicted them of that under Section 201, Penal Code, sentencing each to 7 years' R.I. and Maru to a fine of us. 1000 or six months' R.I. in default and the remaining five to a fine of its. 500 each or three, months' E.I. in default of payment of fine. An the six have appealed to this Court.2. The deceased Bhangi, aged about 55, had illicit connection with Mt. Prabhi (P. W. 1), aged 25, wife of Pillu (P. W. 4). Mehta accused is a first cousin of Pillu. The prosecution case is that in the absence of Pillu, who had gone to Bhakra, Bhangi went to his house on 19.7.1951 to have sexual intercourse with Mt. Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shanker Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All347
ORDERAgarwala, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The applicant was convicted under Sections 323 and 447, I. P. C., by a Panchayati Adalat and fined Rs. 50 and 25 respectively for the two offences. The order of the Panchayati Adalat was confirmed on revision by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.2. Two points have been taken before me. The first point urged is that the complainant died during the pendency of the revision before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate but after the decision by the Panchayati Adalat, and that therefore the case abated and the order of the Panchayati Adalat became null and void.3. Ordinarily, a criminal complaint does not abate on the death of a complainant, because it is the State which is, in fact, the prosecutor; the complainant being merely a person helping the State in punishing the guilty. Reliance has been placed on Rule 101 of the Panchayat Raj Rules which runs as follows :'If, during the pendency of a criminal case, othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »