Allahabad Court February 1952 Judgments
State Vs. Shankar Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All776
Bind Basni Prasad, J. 1. Between 11 P.M. and the daybreak on the night between the 16th and 17th August 1950, one Bhagwan Das Kalwar aged about 50 years, was murdered by strangulation in a room in the upper storey of Onkar Nath Dharamshala situated in Mohalla Naka Muzaffra in the city of Faizabad. The murder remained unnoticed upto about 10 A.M. in the morning when Smt. Mulha, the wife of Debi Prasad, informed Bhagwan Din, Pujari of the Dharamshala that one of the backdoors of one of the rooms in the occupation of Bhagwan Das was open. Mahadeo, a relative of Bhagwan Das was sent for, and then a party went into the room on the upper storey where Bhagwan Das was found lying dead on the floor. Constable Barkhurdar happened to reach there. He communicated this news to Mahamudul Hasan, Head Constable, who visited the scene and at 1 P.M. he lodged a report at the Kotwali, Faizabad. The report runs as follows: 'I, Mahumudul Hasan, Head Constable No. 59/C.P., was informed by Barkhurdar Khan, C...
Tag this Judgment!Sapattar Singh Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All136
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J.1. This is an application in revision by Sapattar Singh, son of Sanmukh Singh, a resident of village Tabar, P. S. Nakur, in the district of Saharanpur. The applicant was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of Saharanpur for an offence punishable under Section 411, Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo two weeks' further rigorous imprisonment. Against his conviction and sentence the applicant filed an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, who upheld the conviction as well as the sentence-Now, the applicant has filed this revision.2. It has been found by the courts below that three she-buffaloes belonging to the complainant, Kundan, were stolen in the night bet-tween the 29th and the 30th September 1949; that on the 12th October 1949, Malkhan Singh, P. W., saw one of the three she-buffaloes tied in the applicant's 'gher...
Tag this Judgment!Masih UddIn Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All383
ORDERWali Ullah, J. 1. The applicant has come up in revision against an order passed by the learned Magistrate oil 19-7-1950, by which the crops attached were directed to be released in favour of the opposite party i. e., Bhura and others. This order of the learned Magistrate was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 9-3-1951, when he dismissed the application in revision. 2. It appears that the applicant, on 26-11-1949, made an application under Section 145, Cr. P. C., as the Mukhtar-i-am of the Mutwallis of a waqf. It was alleged by the applicant that the opposite party, namely Bhura and others, were interfering with the possession of the Mutwallis trustees over a large number of plots of land in village Kalolijar in the district of Namirpur. It was alleged that there was consequently an apprehension of a breach of the peace. 3. Notice was issued to the opposite party and proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., were carried on in the Court of the Magistrate. The applicant, in s...
Tag this Judgment!Shitab Singh and ors. Vs. Suraj Bali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All750
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.2. The applicants, Shitab Singh, Bhola Singh and Sheo Baksh Singh pray that the order of allotment to the opposite parties of certain agricultural lands passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, on 4-4-1951, under Section 3, Land Utilisation Act (V of 1948) be cancelled and the petitioners be permitted to retain the plots to which the aforesaid order related. Section 3 of the Act provides that '(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939, or in any other enactment for the, time being in force, the Collector may, by notice in writing in the form specified in the Schedule, call upon the landlord of any land situated within his jurisdiction, which is not grove-land or land let to or held by a tenant, and which has not been cultivated or, if previously cultivated, has not been cultivated during the Rabi and Kharif immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, to let out such land or...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhanandan Vs. Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All917
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is an application by a plaintiff whose suit under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of a mortgage executed on 24-4-1944 has been dismissed by the appellate Court on the ground that Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, does not apply to redemption of this mortgage. Under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, a mortgage, whether executed before or after the passing of the Act, can be redeemed in certain circumstances. Section 27, Debt Redemption Act, has unconditionally and absolutely repealed Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act in its application to mortgages made after the commencement of the Debt Redemption Act on 1-1-1941. The effect of Section 27, Debt Redemption Act, is that now no mortgage executed after 1940 can be redeemed under Section 12,Agriculturists' Relief Act. This is the view taken by the appellate Court and it is quite correct. 2. The Debt Redemption Act contains a definition of 'loan'; that definition includes advances...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Chand Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All381
ORDERWali Ullah, J. 1. The applicant, Prem Chand, has been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 420, Penal Code. The sentence passed upon him is one of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of RS. 100, in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Both the conviction and the sentence of the applicant have been confirmed by the appellate Court. 2. It appears that the applicant, who is a member of the District Board of Etawah, sold by public auction, leaves of Khajur trees standing on the roadside between Debiapur find Phaphund. This was done by him on 11-9-1948, without any authority from the District Board. Ramadhin P. W. was the highest bidder. He purchased the leaves and paid Rs. 76 then and there. What he describes as a Kachchi Rasid, EX. P. 1, was given to Ramadhin, A proper receipt from the District Board, however, was promised to him after the amount had been deposited in the office of the District Board. Later it came to the knowledge of Ramadhin that t...
Tag this Judgment!Budh Prakash Jai Prakash and anr. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All764
Sapru, J. 1. This is an application, under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' quashing the assessment orders dated the 27-2-1950 and the 23-5-1950 relating to the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 respectively and the provisional assessment order dated the 30-1-1950 relating to the assessment year 1949-50 in respect of forward contracts of peas. Included in the application is a prayer for a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding opposite party No. 1 to desist from proceeding further with assessment proceedings relating to forward contracts of guar and peas. Also included in the relief claimed is a writ in the nature of mandamus' to opposite parties calling upon them to forbear from giving effect to the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, in so far as they relate to forward contracts in respect of gold, silver and guar.2. The case for the applicant will be found set forth in the affidavit which has been filed on be...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Ram and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All137
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This is an application in revision filed on behalf of Jairam and Satyaram, who are own brothers and were convicted by the Bench Magistrates of Bhogaon, in the district of Mainpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 452 and 323, I.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to different terms of imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mainpuri set aside the conviction of the applicants under Section 147, I.P.C. but upheld their conviction under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. The applicants have now come up to this Court in revision.2. On behalf of the applicants, the first point urged in this revision is that the Bench Magistrates, who delivered the judgment, were not present on the Bench throughout the proceedings. A reference to the order sheets bears out this contention of the applicants' learned counsel. The case was transferred to the Bench Magistrates on the 21st January 1950. When this case was taken up by the Bench Magistrates ...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Lal Vs. Balmukund Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All231
V. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a second appeal arising out of proceedings for execution of a decree for ejectment from a house. The judgment-debtor-appellant objected to his ejectment on the ground that he was protected from ejectment under the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control o Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947). The decree sought to be executed was passed on the basis of a suit filed on 2-6-1945. The final judgment of the appellate Court was delivered on 6-9-1946. The decree was thus passed before the Control of Rent and Eviction Act., 1947, came into force. The decree would, therefore, be governed by Section 14 and not by Section 15 of the Act. The lower appellate Court has held that the appellant had made wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and a notice had been served on the appellant making a demand of the rent from him so that the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act existed. On this ground, execution of the decree by ejectment of the appellant h...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Firm Ramdayal Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All923
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 375 of 1942 is not binding on them. The decree in Suit No. 375 of 1942 was sought to be avoided on the allegation that it had been obtained by fraud. The fraud alleged by the appellants was that in that suit, the joint family firm of the appellants had been sued through Dwarka Prasad when the respondent very well knew that the firm belonged to Kan-haiya Lal, appellant.For this proposition, reliance was placed on an admission made by the respondent in a still earlier suit. That admission was to the effect that Kanhaiya Lal appellant was carrying on business in the name of Dwarka Prasad Madan Lal. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that this admission amounted to saying that Kanhaiya Lal was the sole owner of this firm and, therefore, a fraud was committed when the firm Dwarka Prasad Madan Lal was sued through Dwarka Prasad and not through K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »