Allahabad Court April 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.
Ayodhya Nath and ors. Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All751
ORDERBej, J. 1. This criminal reference arises out of an application, under Section 145, Criminal P. C. given by two persons, namely, Ganga Prasad & Sham Behari who were the first parties in the case. The second parties in the case were Lala Ajodhia Nath, Tiloki Nath, Shambhu, Jogai, Dularey Kori, Nanha Kumar and Ashraf. The application related to a large area of land not less than 58 bighas and 13 biswas situate in village Barwalia in the district of Lucknow. The allegations of the applicants were that the land in question was a pasture land, a lease for which, had been taken by their ancestors for a nominal rent of Re. 1/- from the landlord. 2. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords. They alleged that they were the owners of the said land and had been in rightful possession of the same. They had given portions of it for cultivation to other parties. There were, however, certain proprietary groves of theirs on this land in which grass used to grow, and the applicants use...
Nakchhed Singh and ors. Vs. Bijai Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All759
Bhargava, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain property mentioned in the plaint. The facts that are either admitted or which have been found by the lower Court and are no longer questioned in this appeal are that the property in suit belonged to one Ram Harakh Singh. In the year 1916 Ram Harakh Singh was murdered by Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh, against whom the suit was brought by the appellants impleading them as defendants. Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh both died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court. In their place Bijai Bahadur Singh and Ram Pal Singh sons of Ram Anand Singh have been substituted as legal representatives. They were impleaded as legal representatives of Ram Anand Singh and Ram Narain Singh. These two respondents, Bijai Bahadur Singh and Ram Pal Singh were also impleaded as claiming in their own right. When Ram Harakh Singh died in the year 1916, he left Ms widow, Abhairaji but no issues. Abhaira...
Chhedi Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All752
ORDERDesai, J. 1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Allahabad, who recommends that the order of a Magistrate transferring the case to a Panchayati Adalat be set aside and that he be directed to try the case himself. After hearing the case the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence made out against the accused was punishable only under Section 411, Penal Code and that the value of the stolen property said to have been recovered from his possession was less than Rs. 50. He, therefore, thought that the offence was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Panchayati Adalat and accordingly transferred it to the Panchayati Adalat having jurisdiction. 2. Property worth more than Rs. 50/- was stolen though only property worth less than Rs. 50/- has been recovered. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that the value within the meaning of Section 52(1)(a), Panchayat Raj Act is the value of the property stolen and not that of the property recovered. If the case is...
Karim Ullah Vs. Abdul Hamid and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All696
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property in dispute is a house situated in the town of Amroha. The plaintiff-respondent is a co-sharer in the house. The house consists of two kothas, a courtyard, a latrine and a passage. One kotha was owned by defendant 2 and the other by the plaintiff-respondent. The courtyard, the latrine and the passage were owned by both of them jointly. Defendant 2 transferred his share of the house to defendant 1 fay a sale-deed dated 1-12-1943. The plaintiff instituted a suit for pre-emption of the house on 25-10-1944, which has given rise to this appeal. On 4-8-1945, defendant 1 re-transferred the house to defendant 2, the original vendor. It was alleged in the sale-deed that when the original transfer was made by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 on 1-12-1943, it was orally agreed that the vendee would transfer the house to the vendor if the vendor paid the price within two years. Itwas further alleged...
Sheo Dayal and anr. Vs. Ram Harakh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All66
V. Bhargava, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession over certain tenancy plots.2. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are that some of the plots in suit were originally the tenancy of Ram Padarath upto the year 1328 Fasli; that some time during 1328 Fasii Bam Padarath died so that, in 1329 Fasli, those plots were shown as being in the possession of his widow, Shrimati Maharaj Dei; that in 1331 Fasli Shrimati Maharaj Dei obtained a lease of all the plots in suit, which included the plots which had been shown in the name of Ram Padarath in 1328 Fasli, from the landlord and she was granted the rights of a statutory tenant; and that Shrimati Maharaj Dei died in 1945 and then a dispute arose as to who was entitled to succeed to the tenancy Tights in those plots. The plaintiffs-appellants are the sons of the daughter of Ram Padarath and Shrimati Maharaj Dei whereas the respondents are the brother and the brother's son of Ram Padarath. The appellants claimed that...
Mahmood Hasan Khan Vs. Bhikhari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All705
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for per-emption. The property in dispute consists of certain plots of land comprised in Khata Khewat No, 14 in Qasba Fatehpur. Mohal Kamalpur Abdur Rauf Khan. The plots are situated within the Municipal limits of Fatehpur and consist of a guavagrove. In a portion of it there is a graveyard as well. The total area of the plots in dispute is 4 bighas and 6 biswas. The defendants 3 and 4 sold these plots to defendants 1 and 2 for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1300/-. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal for pre-emption, on the ground that he was a co-sharer in the mohal in which the plots were situated while the vendees were not and further that he held in proprietary right a guava grove adjoining the plots in dispute. According to him, the Muhammadan Law applied to the case and he had made the necessary demands for pre-emption. He further pleaded that in any case he had a right ...
Baij Nath and anr. Vs. Ram Bharose and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All565
Sapru, J. 1. The question which has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court to the Full Bench is as follows: ' If, in a suit, a plaintiff makes a claim against a number of defendants on common grounds and all the defendants also contest the suit on common grounds and the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants, can an appeal filed by all the defendants be heard in favour of the remaining defendants after one of the appealing defendants has died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have not been brought on the record so that his appeal has abated; and further, if the appeal of the remaining defendants can be heard, would the decision in it enure to the benefit of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant-appellant?'2. In order to understand precisely how the point has arisen, it is desirable to give a few facts relating to these cases. The principal defendants in the suit out of which the two appeals arise ...
Dwarka Gorh and ors. Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All666
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. The decision of the Panehavati Adalat was made on 5-7-1952 and the revision before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not filed till 20-11-1952, that is after a lapse of three months and about 5 days. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the application on the ground that it was belated application. He has mentioned that it was filed beyond two months. It does not appear that any period of limitation is fixed for filing revision applications before the Sub-Divisional Magistrates, taut at the same time a period of two months is a reasonable time for filing such applications. If they are filed beyond that time it is open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to reject them unless the delay is sufficiently explained by the applicants.2. There is no force in this application. It is rejected....
New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, U.P., Lu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All110; [1953]24ITR388(All)
Malik C.J.1. There were two applications for reference before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, one arising out of income-tax proceedings and the other arising out of Excess Profits Tax proceedings. The Tribunal has made one combined reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act and Section 66(1),' Income-tax Act read with Section 21, Excess Profits Tax Act. The question arising in both was identical and has been framed as follows:'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, and on the facts stated, the order of the Tribunal dated 21-2-1945, passed in the appeal of Kanpur Dyeing and Cloth Printing Co. Ltd, constituted a definite piece of information which came into the possession of the Income-tax Officer in consequence of which he discovered that the appellant's income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 34, I. T. Act and justified the revision of the original assessment which had been completed on 15-7-1943?'2. The facts of the case, as they appear from the statement...
J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1953All624; (1953)IILLJ10All
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1.This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a -writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 1-11-1951 and the order dated4-7-1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.2. The petitioner is the J. K. Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., having its registered office at Kamla Tower, Kanpur. It dispensed with the services of 128 workers on 15-5-1951 and served on them a notice to this effect:'Consequent to transfer of the Rolling Mill to Calcutta and want of scrap to work furnace department in full, the services of the persons as per list attached are dispensed with from today. Their wages and other dues in full settlement will be paid after 2 P.M.'The dismissal of the workers was challenged on their behalf by the Secretary, Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur.3. On 28-6-1951, the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3, 4 and 8, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1949) & in pursuance of the prov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »