Allahabad Court August 1953 Judgments
Prem Chand and anr. Vs. Mst. Bittan Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All143
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Gonda modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bahraich.2. One Barati Lal had two sons, Brahma Prasad and Jot Prasad. Brahma Prasad had a son Bhagawti Prasad who had two sons, Prem Chand and Gyan Chand. Jot Prasad, the second son of Barati Lal, died issueless leaving a widow Bittan Devi. Barati Lal was possessed of two plots Nos. 5277 and 5298 which had groves standing on them along with considerable other property with which I am not concerned in the present appeal. Barati Lal died in 1932 when his two sons, Brahrna Prasad and Jot Prasad, were alive. Jot Prasad died in 1936. His widow Smt. Bittan Devi instituted a suit for the possession of a half share in the grove standing in the two plots mentioned above on the allegations that a half share in each of these two groves belonged to her husband Jot Prasad and that she succeeded to the property of her hus...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Mehdi Vs. HusaIn Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All209
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge, Lucknow, in appeal against an order of the Munsif, Haveli, Lucknow, allowing an application for amendment of a written statement in a suit which was pending before him. 2. It appears that a suit for rendition of ac-counts was instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party against the delendant-applicant in the Court of the Munsif North. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- had been paid to the defendants towards establishing a mill which was to be run by them jointly. The defendants filed a written statement denying the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff. Subsequently after a witness had been examined the defendants made an application for amendment of their written statement. This application for amendment was considered by the learned Munsif and was rejected. In rejecting the application for amendment, the learned Munsif also made certain observatio...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. RukmIn and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All192
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a second appeal in a suit under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. It appears that one Smt. Radha was the tenant of the khata in dispute in this case. She died in November 1943 and disputes arose over her tenancy rights. The defendants entered into Possession of the khata and the plaintiff Mulhay then instituted the suit which has given rise to the present, appeal for possession of the khata on the allegation that he was the own brother of Smt. Radha & as such succeeded to the tenancy rights of Smt. Radha. A claim for damages was also made along with the claim for possession. The plaintiff had mentioned in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 were in possession of the khata on behalf of the zamindars who were defendants 4 to 6.2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff was not the brother of Smt. Radha and as such was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of Smt. Radha. It was also pleaded that the suit was not cogniz...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Chand Rani Vs. Chaitram Mukhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All108
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Munsif, Lucknow fixing Rs. 19/-p. m. as the fair rent of the premises belonging to the applicant.2. It appears that the defendant owned a house in Aminabad and it was let out to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1500/- to the defendant & the defendant informed the plaintiff that this rent had been received by him for one year. Subsequently the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant asking him as to what the rent of the premises was & what was the period towards which the amount sent was appropriated. No reply was sent to this notice. He then instituted a suit under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act for the fixation of fair rent. The lower Court found that there was no agreed rent and that Rs. 19/- was the fair rent and decreed the claim. A plea of jurisdiction had also been raised by the defendant in the lower Court and it was contended that inasmuch as the agreed rent was in excess of Rs. 500/- t...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Kishore Tandon and ors. Vs. Braj Kishore Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All117
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits but the same question is involved in both of them and they may, therefore be disposed of by this judgment.2. Appeal No. 101 of 1946 arises out of a suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act for accounting under a mortgage deed dated 9-7-1928, executed by Shrimati Rani Piari defendant-respondent 4 and her four sons, Onkar Nath, Brij Kishore, Shiam Kishore, defendants-respondents 1 to 3 and the plaintiff-appellant, Rup Kishore. The mortgagee was Sukhan Lal, defendant-respondent 5 who transferred his mortgagee rights to Brij Kishore one of the mortgagors, arrayed as defendant-respondent No. 1. The plaintiff's case was that he was an agriculturist both at the date of the suit as well as at the date of the loan & therefore, he was entitled to sue for accounts under the Agriculturists' Relief Act.3. The defence was that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist on the date of the loan.4. Appeal No. 102 arises out of a similar suit for accounts...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra and anr. Vs. Balmukand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All63
Brij Mohan Lall, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the decree-holders. On the basis of a simple mortgage deed they obtained a decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 4, Civil P. C. on 24-8-1939 and a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P. C. on 15-8-1942. They applied for execution of the final decree on 8-7-1944. On 27-8-1945 the judgment-debtors lodged a petition of objections and therein claimed that they were agriculturists within the meaning of the Agriculturists' Relief Act and the Debt Redemption Act. On the basis of that claim they prayed that the interest awarded in the decree might be reduced. The decree-holders denied the judgment-debtors' status as agriculturists. 2. At the time of hearing, the judgment-debtors gave up their claim as agriculturists under the Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the learned Munslf recorded a definite finding that they were not agriculturists within the meaning of the said Act. This finding has not been challenged at any stage of the litigation...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Prakash Singh and ors. Vs. Madhusudan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All164
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a bungalow situated in Sitapur and for some other reliefs. The facts are a little complicated but briefly stated are as follows:2. The plaintiffs are the grandsons of Raja Sripal Singh, a Taluqdar of Tikra Basaidih. In the year 1911 Raja Sripal Singh purchased a bungalow called Churamau Bungalow in Sitapur. The sale deed was however executed in the name of Rajendra Singh, son of Raja Sripal Singh and lather of the plaintiffs-appellants. Raja Sripal Singh was declared a ward of the Court sometime in 1925. Raja Sripal died in October 1930. On 1-10-1930 Rajendra Singh, his son, applied under Section 10, U. P. Court of Wards Act that his property be taken under the superintendence of the Courtof Wards. On 31-10-1931 the Court of Wards made a declaration to that effect, and actually took over the property under their superintendence, but left the bungalow in dispute in possession of Rajendra Singh as he u...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All313
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a report by the taxing officer about deficiency in Court fee. The facts are simple :2. Ram Lakhan and Ram Naresh, plaintiffs-appellants, filed a suit for partition against their uncle, Raj Kumar, in respect of movable and im-movable properties. They claimed a half share in all of the properties on the ground that all of them were Joint family properties. The defence to the suit was that part of the immovable property was the self-acquired property of Raj Kumar and the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any share therein.3. The trial Court decreed the suit in part. and dismissed it in respect of some items of the property in dispute. Both parties were dissatisfied with that decree. The plaintiffs appealed to the lower appellate Court in respect of items which were held not to be joint family property while the defendant filed cross-objections in respect of some of the properties which had been held to be joint family properties and not the self-acquired proper...
Tag this Judgment!Bans Ali and ors. Vs. Mohammad Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All70
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of two holdings, one in village Lauki and the other in village Shekhapur. The plaintiffs' case was that one Habi was originally a tenant of these holdings. He left three sons, Karimullah, Fakhrullah and Akbar All who succeeded him on his death. After the death of Akbar Ali, Mst. Muliman his widow succeeded him as his heir and remained in possession of the property till her death in 1943. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 being the sons of Karimullah and Fakhrullah respectively and plaintiff No. 3 being the grandson of Fakhrullah are now entitled to the holdings on the death of Mst. Muliman, as the reversioners of her husband, Akbar Ali. The suit was instituted in 1945. The plaintiffs claim that the succession to the tenancy was governed by Section 36, U. P. Tenancy Act.2. The defendants are the sons of Malka daughter of Muliman. Their defence was that Mst. Muliman was a tenant of the holdings in her own r...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Das Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954All80
Raghubab Dayal, J.1. Gopal Das Kapoor and another were committed to the Court of Session at Kanpur for trial of offences under Sections 409 and 120B, Penal Code. The Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 477A, I. P. C., also against them. Both the accused are public servants.2. On a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution this case was transferred to this Court as it involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General on the point and dispose of the constitutional point alone. Further proceedings in the case will be taken in the Court of the Sessions Judge.3. Section 409, I. P. C., which punishes 'criminal breach of trust' is in, these words:'Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, comm...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »