Allahabad Court December 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.
Chhotey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All687
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by Chhotey Lal who has been convicted under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment.2. Chhotey Lal stood his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Pilibhit along with three other persons, Ram Bharosey Lal, Rajendra Kumar and Avadh Behari Lal for offences punishable under Sections 304/34 and Section 394, I. P. C. The facts on which the aforementioned charges were made against the four accused who stood a joint trial, before the Sessions Judge of Pilibhit were that they killed one Lala Nanhey Mal on 3-7-1950, when he was going to the railway station in the small hours of the morning to catch a train for Bareilly. Lala Nanhey Mal had on his person a large sum of money and with him there was another man named Ramesh Chandra who also carried a part of the money of Lala Nanhey Mal. These two people were surprised by some persons, according to the prosecution by the four accused, and thereafter Nanhey Mal wa...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Sunder Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All445
Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's revision directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Bareilly refusing to enhance the rent, and also disallowing the claim for the recovery of rent at the enhanced rate from a back date.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the defendant opposite party has been a tenant of the plaintiff applicant for more than 15 years, and the rent previously fixed was at the rate of Rs. 38/- per month. This rent was reduced in 1936 and again in 1938. After the deduction in 1938 the rent was fixed at Rs. 31/- per month with an additional annual payment of Rs. 36/-, the total rent thus being Rs. 34/- per month. On 4-5-1948 the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant enhancing the rent by 50 per cent. The defendant did not accept this enhancement, but agreed to the enhancement of 25 per cent. only. The present suit was consequently filed for fixation of rent at Rs. 51/- per month, which would be the rent payable if the enhancement ...
Md. Ishaq Vs. Abdul Majeed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All455
ORDERBrij Mohan Lall, J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant.2. A suit has been instituted by the opposite party against the applicant and is pending in the court of the learned first Additional Munsif of Allahabad. Several causes of action have been combined in that suit. There is only one plaintiff and one defendant. The applicant who, as already stated, is the defendant, raised an objection to the effect that there was a defect of mis-joinder of causes of action. The learned Munsif has overruled this plea and has rightly pointed out that Rule 3 of Order 2, Civil P. C. permits a plaintiff to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly: Since the law has conferred on the plaintiff opposite party the right to have his several disputes with the applicant decided in one suit and since the plaintiff has chosen to combine all the causes of action in one suit, he has done nothing contrary to law. No question. of c...
Brij Lal Suri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All393
Mootham, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is the karta of a joint Hindu family firm which carries on business in the name of the Northern India Lime Marketing Association, hereinafter referred to as 'the Association'. The first respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh and the other respondents are State officials. The principle relief sought by the petitioner is the issue of a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' to compel the State Government to issue to the Association a mining lease to which he claims that it has a statutory right. 2. The circumstances giving rise to this petition are briefly these: In the Dehra Dun District of this State there are valuable limestone deposits, and on the 31-7-1948, the Association was granted a prospecting licence in the form prescribed by the United provinces Mining Concessions and Mineral Development Rules, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1940 Rules') and purporting to be issued in accordance with th...
Ram Lakhan Vs. Mirza Mahbub Hasan Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All422
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is an execution first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bahraich, dated 19th November, 1946.2. It appears that a decree for costs and some money was obtained by respondents 1 to 4 against the respondent No. 5 on the 30th March, 1935. The decree-holders put their decree into execution on the 30th March, 1938. Some proceedings were taken but ultimately the execution application was ordered to be consigned to record room on the 15th October, 1938. A fresh application for execution was made on 1st May, 1941 and a prayer for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of a house of respondent No. 5 was made. During the pendency of this execution, an application was made on the 27th August, 1941 in which a prayer was made that the house 'Sultan Manzil' of the judgment-debtor be attached under Order 39. Rule 1, Civil P. C. Reference was also made to Section 151 and Order 21, Rule 51 (54?), Civil P. C. in the heading given to the ...
Sheoram and anr. Vs. Prem Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All436
Ranbhir Singh, J.1. This is a second rent appeal by an unsuccessful defendant arising out of a suit under Section 180 'U. P. Tenancy Act'. It appears that four persons Prem Shankar, Girja Shankar, Durga Shan-kar and Gyan Shankar instituted a suit against Darshan,. who was originally the appellant in this case but has since died, for possession of certain plots of land on the allegations that these plots belonged to the plaintiffs who owned specific shares in the plots but had been taken unlawful possession of by the defendant.2. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds and claimed proprietary interest in the plots. An issue on proprietary title was then framed by the Revenue Court and was referred to the Civil court for decision. The decision of the Civil Court was in favour of the plaintiffs. On receipt of the finding of the Civil Court, the Revenue Court decreed the suit for possession of the plots in favour of all the four plaintiffs. Darshan then went in appeal to the Di...
S.K. Dutt Vs. Law Book Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All570
B. Mukerji, J.1. Sri S.K. Dutt, an advocate practising in this Court, has filed this suit purporting to be one under Section 13, Copyright Act, 1914. The plaintiff alleges that he is the author and sole owner of the copyright in the work entitled 'The Indian Partnership Act by Mukerji and Dutt'. This work, the plaintiff alleges, he published in the year 1934 in collaboration with Sir Manmotho Nath Mukerji, an ex-Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta and an ex-Law Member of the Government of India.The plaintiff further alleges that the aforementioned book--the Law of Partnership in India--has earned a great reputation and it has had sales in the United States of America, in England and practically throughout this country. The plaintiff's case further is that defendant No. 2, namely, J.N. Bagga, published a work entitled 'Law Book Company's Commentaries of Law & Practice of Partnership & Private Companies in India' in the year 1947. This rival publication, according to the plaintif...
Mangat and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All674
ORDERKidwai, J.1. This case has been referred, by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut for directing a Magistrate to examine the witnesses 'de novo' since a request to that effect has been made and disallowed by the Magistrate. The facts upon which this recommendation has been made are that the complaint was originally filed on 14-9-1950 in the court of Sri Aizaz Ahmad who was later transferred and was succeeded by Sri Parmesh-wari Dayal. Sri Bharadwaj succeeded Sri Parme-shwari Dayal and Sri R. P. Srivastava replaced Sri Bharadwaj. On 16-10-1951 Sri Bharadwaj asked the counsel for the accused whether he can claim a 'de novo' trial. One of the counsel who represented ten out of twenty accused did not claim a 'de novo' trial; the other counsel made no statement.2. When the matter came before Sri Srivastava on 6th of November 1951 Mr. Srivastava was not. present in court on that date. The case was accordingly adjourned to 10-11-1951. Again Mr. Srivastava was not present and the case was ...
Chivdeni Rai Vs. Bans NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All391
ORDERAsthana, J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ghazi-pur, dated the 27th December, 1952, who quashed the order of the Panchayati Adalat, Reotipur, and cancelled its jurisdiction.2. The facts which gave rise to the case out of which this application has arisen may be stated as follows: The Applicant filed a complaint under sections 323 and 426, I. P. C. against the opposite parties 1 to 3 in the Panchayati Adalat, Reotipur. It appears that an application was made by the accused to the Panchayati Raj Inspector that they were not on good terms with the Sar-panch and that the case might be tried by another bench of which he was not a member. The Panchayati Raj Inspector stayed further proceedings. This stay order was subsequently vacated by him and a date was fixed for the hearing of the case in the Panchayati Adalat and notice was ordered to...
Haji Muzahir Ali Vs. Lachman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All559
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the District Judge of Barabanki who allowed the appeal instituted by the defendants against the decree of the Munsif of Barabanki in a suit for possession.2. In order to appreciate the controversy in this case, a brief reference to facts may be made at the outset. One Irshad Husain made a simple mortgage of his property on 10-7-1923, in favour of defendants 1 and 2. He subsequently made a usufructuary mortgage of the property in favour of the appellant on 13-1-1928, but this is not very relevant for the purposes of this appeal. The defendants 1 and 2, who were the simple mortgagees, obtained a decree on the basis of their mortgage dated 10-7-1923 against the mortgagor but in the suit, however, they failed to implead the subsequent usufructuary mortgagee, who is the appellant in the present appeal. After obtaining the decree on the basis of the prior mortgage dated 10-7-1923, defendants 1 and 2 put it into executi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »