Allahabad Court November 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.
Mohd. Suleman and ors. Vs. Maqsood HussaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All420
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow.2. Defendants I and 2 executed a mortgage in favour of Hafiz Afzal Husain, since dead, for Rs. 1000/- on 3rd of July, 1937. No interest was contracted and it was mentioned in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee had been put into possession. The mortgagee, however, gave back the mortgaged property to the mortgagors on theka. On the 11th of April, 1946, a suit for the recovery of the mortgage money and certain sums due from the mortgagors on account of the unpaid theka money as also for Rs. 103/12/3 said to have been paid by the mortgagee in satisfaction of a decree was instituted.It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that he had to pay Rs. 103/12/3 in order to save the property from being sold in execution of a decree and he was, therefore, entitled to recover this amount along with the mortgage money from the mortgagors under Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act...
State Vs. Tirath Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All583
Agarwala, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur in a jury trial. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:2. The complainant Inder Singh, formerly resided at Lyailpur in West Punjab (Pakistan) and carried on business in cloth. He used to purchase cloth through the agency of a firm called Jhangiram Hukumchand carrying on business of 'pukka Arhatiyas' at Bombay. The firm of Jhangi-ram Hukumchand was owned by three persons, namely, Hukumchand, now deceased, Tirathdas, opposite party, and one Ram Chandra. The firm as 'pukka Arhatiyas' used to buy goods for their constituents from merchants at Bombay and used to make payment to the sellers for the purchases made by them. Sometimes the constituents would deposit money with the firm in advance to be accounted for later on and set off against future purchases. Once the complainant Inder Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with this firm, and interest was paid by this firm on this amount. Af...
Anandi Prasad Vs. Pritam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All353
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. These four revisions arise out of four suits which were brought by the tenants, the landlord in all the cases being the same person, namely,Shri Anandi Prasad. The landlord built certain shops which were ready in October 1949. These shops were allotted to different persons by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. After the order of allotment, it appears that two of the tenants, namely, Misri Lal and Topan Das, executed rent agreements in favour of Anand Prasad agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 40/- per month each, for the two snops that had been allotted to them. No such rent agreements appear in the cases of Pritam Singh and Brij Bhushan Lal, but statements were made by their counsel in the court below saying that as an alternative plea, they submitted that the agreed rent ol the shops was Bs. 40/- per month and the same was unfair. In spite of the execution of the sarkhats in two of the cases, applications were made to the Bent Control and Eviction Officer for fixa...
Manna and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All578
Malik, C.J. 1. This case has been referred to a larger bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that there is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court* and a Full Bench decision of the Rangoon High. Court which are contrary to the view taken by this Court that Section 342, Criminal P. C. applies both to summons as well as to warrant cases. The last decision of this Court mentioned by the learned single Judge is -- 'Sia Ram v. Emperor : AIR1935All217 . That was a decision of a division bench, The learned Chief Justice, sulaiman, C. J, in that case observed as follows:'It may well be that there is much to be said in support of either view, but the preponderance of opinion has been in favour of the view that Section 342 applies both to summons and warrant cases.'2. We are bound by the decision of the bench mentioned above and it is, therefore, not possible for us to take a contrary view. In view of the series of decisions of this Court and the fact that Section 34...
Ramdeo Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1953
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1031
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, recommending that this Court be pleased to set aside the orders of the Panchayati Adalat and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and to quash the proceedings. The learned Sessions Judge has purported to make this reference under Section 438, Criminal P. C. on the basis of an application presented before him for exercise of his powers under Section 435, Criminal P. C.2. The reference raises only one question and is whether the orders of the Panchayati Adalat and of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act can be subject to revision under Sections 435 to 439, Criminal p. C. In making this reference the learned Sessions Judge has referred to - 'State v. Gaya Din Tewari', Criminal Ref. No. 388 of 1950 (A), which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court though it was made against the proceedings before a Panchayati Adalat. The learned Judge has further relied ...
Choteylal and ors. Vs. Gajadhar Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All717
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration or in the alternative for recovery of possession by the ejectment of the defendants-respondents from certain zamindari property and a house. 2. One Ram Gopal who was arrayed as defendant No. 5 and who is in this appeal arrayed as respondent No. 2 and the plaintiffs-appellants are members of a family whose common ancestor was one Pitambar. Pitambar had three sons, Shib Lal, Ram Lal and Khiyali Ram. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are great grandsons of Shib Lal. Plaintiff 1 is grandson or Ram Lal and plaintiff 2 is greatgrandson of Ram Lal. Ram Gopal is great-grandson of Khiyali Ram. The plaintiffs and Ram Gopal are, therefore, removed by several degrees from each other. Ram Gopal executed a mortgage in 1937 of the property in dispute in favour of one Dwarka Prasad, father of defendant-respondent Gajadhar Prasad. In 1938 Ram Gopal executed a deed of gift of the property in suit in favour of the same Dwarka Prasad. T...
Jagan and ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All340
ORDERChaturvedi, J.1. This case was ordered to be connected with Civil Misc. Writ No. 187 of 1953. In Misc. Writ No. 187 of 1953, the learned Judge admitted the 'application, mentioned three points which were considered to arise in that case. These points have been argued in the present Writ case, and I now propose to deal with them after briefly giving the facts of the case.2. The Panchayati Adalat of Bhabhot Circle, district Sultanpur, passed an order on the 27th June, 1951 holding that the applicants had committed an offence under Section 447, I. P. C. and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 50/- each. A revision against this order was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, on the 30th July, 1951. When it was filed, there was no affidavit along with it as provided by Rule 95-A(1) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. An affidavit, however, was subsequently filed some months after revision had been filed. The matter came on for hearing before the learned ...
Brij Kishore and anr. Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All428
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued to the opposite party No. 1, that is, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Magistrate, Kanpur, and the order of allotment, dated the 4th of March, 1953, passed by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Annapurna Cafetaria, Kanpur, through the Secretary, District Food Advisory Committee, Kanpur and Mrs. Rathore, President, District Pood Advisory Committee, Kanpur, be quashed.2. The facts leading to this application are :3. The applicants are the landlords of certain buildings in a compound with one municipal number 17/3 situated on the Mall, Kanpur. Of the various buildings on this land, one was let out to one Shri Uma Shankar Mehrotra, son of Shri Bhupat Prasad Mehrotra, several years ago, Shri Uma Shankar Mehrotra, whose father Shri Bhupat Prasad Mehrotra carried on a busines...
Raj Kishore Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All343
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus, certiorari or such other writ as may be proper be issued declaring that the decision of the Government retiring the petitioner from service prematurely is illegal, void and inoperative, and directing that the petitioner be re-instated in his substantive post. The facts briefly stated are as follows:2. The petitioner, Raj Kishore, entered Government service in the office of the Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, in the year 1923 as an apprentice and having worked on various posts rose to the position of Head Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 300-20-400. The petitioner had an unblemished record of service and got honoraria and special pay getting promotions sometimes superseding his seniors. In 1951 the Government of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party No. 1, on the recommendation of the Director of Agriculture, opposite party no. 2, appointed the petitioner in a leave va...
Mohammad YasIn Vs. the Dist. Magistrate, Kanpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All317
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which, in my opinion, is misconceived. The petitioner is a petition-writer who held a licence Issued by the Collector of Kanpur which permitted him to exercise his profession within the Collectorate at Kanpur. For this licence the petitioner made a quarterly payment of five rupees. Suspicion arose earlier in the year that the petitioner had been responsible for the typing of an anonymous letter addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur. An enquiry of some kind was held and on the 1st September, 1953, the petitioner's licence as a petition-writer was cancelled by an order which reads as follows : 'The typing licence No. 17 issued to Sri Mohammad Yasin, a typist of the Collectorate Court Compound, Kanpur, has been cancelled for a period of five years with effect from 26-8-1953 for having worked in an objectionable manner. No application or papers written by him should be entertained in any court.'2. The pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »