Allahabad Court February 1952 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.
Radhey Lal and anr. Vs. Hausila Bux Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All379
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Radhey Lal and Ram Lakhan Lal against an order passed by the Special Judge, First Grade, Bahraich, rejecting an application under Section 11, Encumbered Estates Act, by the appellants claiming that they had become owners of the property in suit and the landlord-applicants were no longer owners of the same. There was a decree for money in favour of the appellants against the landlord-applicants and in execution of the decree the question arose of transfer of some land belonging to the landlord-applicants. On 30-1-1936, an order was passed under Section 5, Regulation of Sales Act (20 of 1934), the decree-holders having exercised the option of realising the decree by sale of the agricultural-land. The Assistant Collector passed an order on 30-1-1936, in those terms :'I have examined the sale statement. The judgment-debtor did not turn up in spite of sufficient service. The decree-holders want to purchase 70.83 acres for Rupees 12,752-8-8 in fall satisfac...
L. Kedar Nath Vs. L. Kishan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All500
Gurtu, J.1. I agree that we must take into consideration any change in law which has supervened since the judgments in this case were entered.2. The U.P. Act III [3] of 1947 (U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947) was made applicable to the Hasanpur Notified Area on 26-9-1947, that is to say, on a date after the present second appeal was filed in this Court.3. The effect of the Notification in the Official Gazette declaring that the Act was applied to Hasanpur is that every part of the Act becomes applicable. Once the Act is applied, it must, by virtue of Section 1, Sub-section (3), be deemed to have come into operation on 1-10-1946. That is a date which is prior to 29-11-1946 on which date the suit out of which this appeal arises, was instituted. Therefore, the position is that no decree for ejectment can now be passed on grounds other than those specified in Section 3 of the said Act.4. When the plaint was filed, the pleader could not have known that the plaint would ...
Amritsar Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All816
Wali Ullah, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11 (2) (b), U. P. Sales Tax Act (Act XV [15] of 1948). This application was filed on 1-2-1932. Under Section 11 (2) of the Act it was necessary to file this application within 30 days of the refusal by the revising authority, i.e., Judge (Revision) to refer to the High Court any question of law. There is a report by the Stamp Reporter of the Court that the application is beyond limitation by 16 days. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that if the time required for obtaining a copy of the order refusing to state a case be taken into account, the application made must be held to be within time.2. The question which we have to decide is whether the benefit of Section 12, Limitation' Act is available to the applicant in this case. It is clear that there is no provision in regard to this matter contained in the Sales Tax Act. All that it lays down is that such an application, as this must be made wit...
Sm. Prabhabati Devi Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All836
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Srimati Rani Prabhabati Devi arising out of an order, dated 29-11-1951, passed by the District Magistrate of Allahabad by which he requisitioned the newly constructed house situated behind bungalow No. 16. Thornhill Road and facing Clive Road, for the residence of Sri. L.D. Joshi, Member of the Allahabad University Enquiry Committee and Sri Raghunandan Joshi, Assistant Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, purporting to act under Section 3, U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947. Briefly the facts are as follows:--2. The applicant is a permanent resident of the province of Bihar. She is the widow of the late Raja of Banaili. She is aged about 65 years. About 10 years ago she became a widow. She bought house No. 21, Tagore Town, in Allahabad in April, 1943 so that she may pass her old age in this holy city. She states that from that time onwards she has been living in Allahabad. That hous...
Baldoo and ors. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All817
Agarwala, J.1. The applicants were convicted under Section 13, Public Gambling Act and sentenced to a fine of ES. 25. The case against the applicants was that they were playing cards in a public place. It was, however, not proved as to what game they were playing. In order that a person be convicted under Section 13 of the Act it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused were gaming and that the place where they were gaming was a public street, place or thoroughfare. 'Gaming' has been defined in the Act as including a wager or betting (except wagering or betting upon a horse-race and under certain circumstances). Gaming, wagering or betting have all one common feature, that the game is a game of chance and played with stakes. In order, therefore, that gaming be established, the prosecution must establish (1) that the game being played was a game of chance, and (2) that it was being played with stakes. The mere proof that some game of cards was being played and that...
Pearey and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All5
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. The applicants have been tried and convicted of an offence under Section 379, Penal Code. They have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. They went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, but the appeal was unsuccessful.3. They have now come up in revision to this Court. 4. One of the main points urged by learned counsel in this Court is that the proviso (a) to Section 350(i), Criminal P. C., was not complied with fully by the learned Magistrate who decided the case and therefore the conviction of the applicants is vitiated in law.5. It appears that the trial of the applicants proceeded before two other Magistrates before it came to the Court of the present Magistrate--the Tahsildar Magistrate--who decided the case. It appears that all the five prosecution witnesses in the case had been examined before other Magistrates. When the case was taken up by the Tahsildar Magistrate, an application ...
Lakhpat Ram Sharma Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All76
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in whose Court the appeal of the applicant was pending at the time. By this order, the learned Judge adjourned the hearing of the appeal, hut at the same time ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 100/- as costs of adjournment to the respondent.2. Against this order of the learned Judge, the applicant has come up in revision to this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to award costs on account of the adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. He has contended that Section 344 which occurs in chap, 14, Criminal P. C., which is headed as 'General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials' has no application to an appellate Court or a revisional Court. It is conceded by learned counsel that adjournments ordered under Section 344, Criminal P. C., can be made on such terms as the Court thinks fit. These terms may include paym...
Chouthi Raj Vs. Mst. Sumitra Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All146
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. Both these are applications in revision by persons seeking redemption of two mortgages, each being the subject of a separate application under Section12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act 26 of 1934.2. The mortgages were each dated July 16, 1883, executed by Bhairo, grand-uncle of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 and Mst. Rukia, widow of a deceased brother of Bhairo. The mortgage to which the revision first mentioned relates covered certain fixed-rate plots, some bamboo clumps and a 'nim' tree, whereas the mortgage to which the other revision relates consisted only of occupancy plot3. Redemption was sought on the usual allegation that the entire mortgage money in each case had been paid off from the usufruct of the property.4. In defence the applicant's allegation that they were heirs of the mortgagors and as such entitled to claim redemption of the mortgages was denied, and it was further denied that the mortgage money had been paid off in the manner stated by the appli...
Parmeshwar DIn and ors. Vs. Sheo Moorat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All918
ORDERMisra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Partabgarh in a case under Section 145, Criminal P. C. The recommendation of the learned Judge is that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 13-7-1950, be set aside and Parmeshwar Din, Ishwar Din, Bachai and Bhagwati Din the second party be allowed to remain in possession of the plots in dispute. The proceedings were initiated by Sheo Murat and Triloki Lal (called the first party) on the allegation that they were in possession of 14 specified plots measuring 12 bighas in village Jalalpur Kithauli under a patta executed by the zamindar on 1-3-1949 and registered on 24-4-1949. The patta was to begin from 1357F, that is to say from 1-7-1949. Sheo Murat and Triloki Lal stated that there was an apprehension of breach of the peace from the second party (Parmeshwar Din and others) inasmuch as the second party was likely to interfere with their possession and they w...
Gokul Nathji Maharaj and anr. Vs. Nathji Bhogi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All552
Malik, C.J.(1) This is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing a Second Appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiff-appellants are represented by Dr. N. P. Asthana, but learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Harnandan Prasad, states that he has received no instructions from his client. The suit was filed by Shri Thakur Gokul Nathji Maharaj, 'birajman' at Gokul through plaintiff 2, who claimed to be the owner oi the property in suit, but to prevent the defendant raising the question whether it was plaintiff 1 or plaintiff 2 who was the owner of the property it was said in the plaint that plaintiff 2 had joined plaintiff 1 also as a co-plain-tiff and the suit was, therefore, filed in the name of both the plaintiffs.The allegations in the plaint were that the land in suit belonged to the plaintiffs and one Dwarka bad his house on it that in the flood of 1924 the house of Dwarka was washed away and in 1933 the defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›