Allahabad Court October 1953 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.
Ram Lakhan Vs. Mst. Tulsha Widow of Mata Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All199
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant against whom a suit for possession instituted under Section 9, Specific Relief Act has been decreed by the learned Munsif of Gyanpur, district Banaras.2. The plaint allegations, which have been found to be correct by the learned Munsif, are that the plaintiffs (opposite parties 1 and 2) were in peaceful possession of the land in dispute but they were, without their consent and otherwise than in due course of law, dispossessed therefrom by the applicant and other persons who were impleaded in the Court below as co-defendants and who are arrayed in this revision as opposite parties 3 to 6. These findings of fact have to be accepted as correct in these proceedings.3. The only question of law that arises for decision is whether the suit was time-barred. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to mention certain facts. The plaintiff's dispossession took place on 12-7-1949. The suit was instituted in t...
Chamman Lal Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All186
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by Chamman Lal, who was the driver of a motor truck, (against his conviction?) under Section 304A, Penal Code. He was convicted by a Magistrate of the 1st class under that section and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge who agreed with the Magistrate and maintained the conviction and the sentence of the applicant.2. The facts giving rise to this conviction, briefly stated, were these:On February 1, 1951, at about 10 O'clock in the forenoon, the applicant was driving a truck bearing registration No. UPR 3185 and to this truck of his was hitched on another disabled truck. The applicant's truck was towing the other truck by means of a small tow-rope. There was another driver on the driving wheel of the truck that was being towed. There was a collision while these trucks were moving along a certain highway and as a result of that collision one Datadin sustained such severe injuries...
Raja Ram Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All214
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that the accused Raja Ram's conviction recorded by a learned magistrate of that district be set aside and that the case against him be directed to be retried.2. The accused was tried under Section 60(a) of the Excise Act. The charge brought against him was that a bottle containing illicit .liquor was recovered from his house. At the time of arguments before the learned magistrate it was pointed out by the accused's counsel that there was no evidence to prove that the liquor found in the bottle was illicit. The learned Magistrate thereupon ordered that the Excise Inspector who had made the recovery should be examined, It was found on enquiry that the Excise Inspector had been transferred to Tehri. There was, however, on the record a report by the said Excise Inspector. The learned magistrate examined the Excise Clerk wh...
Raj NaraIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All249
Randhir Singh, J.1. The appellants Raj Narain, Kallu and Banwari have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli and have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment under Sections 304, 342, 366, 454, 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Raj Narain has been sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while the other two have been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Raj Narain has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and the other two appellants to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kallu and Banwari have been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment while Raj Narain has been sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Kallu and Banwari have been awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code. Raj Narain has further been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment unde...
Ram Pratap Singh Vs. Suraj Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All185
ORDERRandhir Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision, against an order passed by the Addl. Sessions-Judge of Pratapgarh under Section 436, Criminal P. C. directing further inquiry in a case in which the applicant was discharged by a Magistrate first class.2. It appears that a complaint under Sections. 408/477/477A was instituted against the applicant by the opposite party who was the ziledar of Raja Ajit Prasad Singh of Partabgarh. The complaint was that the applicant had realised sums, of money on behalf of the zamindar but had not accounted for them and had committed criminal breach of trust. The case was heard, by a Magistrate and as many as 13 witnesses were examined. After these witnesses had been examined the Magistrate passed an order that no other witness would be produced and fixed the case for recording the statement of the accused. The accused was examined on 12-9-1951 and the case was adjourned for hearing and arguments.A part of the arguments was heard on 24-9-1951 ...
Umrao Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All424
ORDERDesai, J.1. This is an application in revision by Umrao Lal from his conviction and sentence under Section 193, I. P. C. One Babu Ram was prosecuted for demanding a bribe from the applicant and the applicant was the principal witness in the case against him. He was examined-in-chief on 17-11-1950 and made the following statement: 'I had a talk with Babu Ram at the house of Matru Lal. Babu Ram demanded 200/- Rs. from me in consideration of his getting the case relating to the money order hushed up. Matru Lal settled the transaction for Rs. 50/-. I paid Rs. 40/- which I had with me then to Matru Lal who gave them to Babu Ram.'He was cross-examined under Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 8-12-1950 and in the course of the cross-examination he made the following statement:'The talk about the payment of the bribe had taken place between me and Matru Lal. The accused never demanded a bribe from me. He did not hear the talk about the payment of the bribe. When I paid Rs. 4...
Thakur Vs. Mst. Maida Kaur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All305
Malik, C.J.1. A suit for possession was filed against several defendants. Puttu and Thakur, two brothers were also arrayed as defendants to the suit. The suit was decreed. Thakur alone appealed to this Court and impleaded as respondents, the plain-tiff and the other defendants. In April 1949 the sole appellant, Thakur died. No application was filed to bring his legal representatives on the record within the period of limitation. On 11th December, 1950, an application was filed on behalf of Puttu in which the prayer was as follows :'Wherefore it is prayed that the name of the applicant be struck off as respondent No. 4, he be transposed to the array of the appellants in place of Thakur deceased and be allowed to prosecute the appeal against the respondent according to law.'2. In the application it was mentioned that Puttu was the sole legal representative of the appellant Thakur who had died. Notice of this application was issued to the other respondents. The plaintiff respondent contes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›