Allahabad Court October 1954 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.
Lala Jamuna Prasad and ors. Vs. Sarda Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All186
Agarwala, J. 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors arising out of execution proceedings. The only point for consideration is whether the application for execution made by the respondents decree-holders in the Court below was barred by limitation.2. The facts are simple. In 1937 a suit for partition of the family properties was filed. The suit was decreed on the basis of an award on 2-9-1938. An appeal against it was dismissed on 22-11-1938. By the award the house in dispute was allotted to the respondents decree-holders. A part of it was in possession of the judgment-debtors appellants. The decree-holders-respondents did not make any application for getting possession over the portion of the house which was in the occupation of the judgment-debtors within three years of the decree. They made the application after eleven years on 28-11-1949.The decree-holders were Gajju Lal, his son Jwala Prasad, and four sons of Jwala Prasad, namely, Sharda Prasad, Dharam Pal, Ram Pal and Krishn...
Abdul Hamid Vs. Smt. Fatima Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All36
Malik, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench by a learned single Judge as he considered that the point of law that arose for decision was suffi-ciently important to need an authoritative pro-nouncement.2. This second appeal was filed by the defendant against a decree passed by the Civil Judge of Lucknow confirming a decision of the Munsif decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant from certain premises situate in Luck-now. The learned Munsif had granted to the defendant one month's time to vacate the premises and had directed that he should pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26/4/- as rent for this period. It is not disputed that the defendant is plaintiff's tenant. The defence is that the plain-tiff could not file the suit as the plaintiff had not obtained the permission of the District Magis-trate to file the suit and grounds (a) to (f) of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1947) did not exist.3. The plaintiff, Srimati ...
Kunwar Man Singh and anr. Vs. Lal Dharam Moorat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All261
Kidwai, J.1. Raja Chetpal Singh was the owner of the Noorpur estate (commonly called the Chetpalgarh estate). His name was entered in respect of the said estate at Nos. 274 and 88 respectively of lists I and III prepared under Section 8, Oudh Estates Act 1 of 1869). On 5-6-1891, Chetpal Singh made a gift of, certain items of property to Rani Dilraj Kuer. Raja Ghetpal Singh had an only son Inder-pal Singh who died issueless on 23-12-1894. Thereafter on 24-6-1895, Chetpal Singh executed a willbequesting his property, movable and immovable to his wife, Rani Dilraj Kuer. This will Ex. A-4, provided for the eventuality of there being an after-born son or of the testator adopting a son and it made due provision also for the testator's mother and his widowed daughter-in-law.2. On 6-2-1901 Raja Chetpal Singh died and Rani Dilraj Kuer applied for mutation of names to be effected in her favour. Her application was opposed by Raghunandan Singh, on behalf of his son Bhagwati Prasad Singh who, he c...
Murari Lal Solan Vs. State Through Dist. Magistrate, Muzaffarngar and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All48
Malik, C.J. 1. On a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Wali Ullah and Mr. Justice Agarwala a question of law was referred to a third Judge. The learned Judge to whom the question was referred in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of -- 'Ram Kishan v. State : AIR1951All181 , thought it necessary that the question should be decided by a Full Bench of five Judges, as in his opinion the decision in -- 'State v. Ram Kishan', (A), needed reconsideration. 2. The question referred for consideration is as follows: 'Whether Section 1 (5) U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 25 of 1947, in so far as it authorises the Provincial Government to direct the extension of the life of the Act beyond one year from 1-10-1947, is 'ultra vires' the U. P. Legislature?' 3. The U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 25 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) was passed, as its preamble shows, because of shortage of accommodation, which had become very acute ...
Firm Kamta Prasad Jagannath Prasad Vs. Gulzari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All41
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. This is a Special Appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1200/-, on the allegation that the plaintiff-firm Kamta Prasad Jagannath Prasad was a registered firm and carried on business of commission agency for sale and purchase of potato, tobacco and 'khali', and the defendants had entered into several transactions of sale of potatoes, tobacco, etc., through the plaintiff-firm and they had also made certain purchases from the firm and the amount was due on a balance of account. It was said that the accounts between the parties were mutual, open and current as the plaintiff had to pay to the defendants the price realised from defendants' customers and the defendants had to pay to the plaintiff price of the goods purchased. The last item was entered in the accounts on 31-7-1943, from which date, it was claimed, limitation should be computed. The suit was filed on 24-2-1944. Among other defences a defence was ta...
Ram Kishore Jaiswal Vs. B. Kavindra NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All59
Malik, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits filed in the court of the Additional Munsif of Bana-ras for realisation of 'zar-i-chaharum', that is, one-fourth of the sale price.2. On 16-7-1947, in execution of a simple money decree against Babu Nandan a portion of plot No. 586 was sold at auction and was purchased by the appellant, Ram Kishore Jaiswal. On 25-8-1938, another portion of the same plot was sold by BabuNandan to the appellant. On 19-9-1938, the rest of plot No. 586 was sold by Babu Nandan to the appellant.3. Plot No. 586 was situate in Patti Shamlat, Mauza Jaitpura, Banaras. The plaintiffs were the plot proprietors while the defendant Babu Nandan was a parjotdar. The plaintiffs filed three suits and in the plaint they alleged that they were zamindars and under an ancient custom the zamindars were entitled to get one-fourth of the sale price, whether the property was sold by voluntary sale or by auction sale.4. Suit No. 291 of 1943 was filed to claim 'zar-i-chah...
Bhagirathi and ors. Vs. the State Through Smt. Raziya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All113
Malik, C.J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Desai. I agree with him that the Panchayati Adalat is not bound by the provisions of the Criminal P. C. and if for the three offences it did not pass separate sentences, it cannot be said that the sentence is illegal provided the sentence passed by it is within its competence. 2. As regards the second contention that the bench was not constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 (2), Panchayat Raj Act, two points were raised before us: firstly, that the decision was given by as many as seven panches and, secondly, that there was only one panch from village Hajiganj to which the complainant and the accused belonged while there should have been two. 3. As regards the first point, we gave the appellant an opportunity to establish that the bench consisted of more than five panches or that more than five panches had taken part in the proceedings or pronounced, the judgment. Learned counsel admitted th...
Kalap Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Shyama Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All159
Malik, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Bench of five Judges by our brothers Sankar Saran and Gurtu who were of the opinion that the decision of the Full Bench in -- 'Chunna MaA v. Bhagwant Kisbore : AIR1936All584 needed reconsideration. In that case the point referred to the Full Bench for decision was as follows :'Whether after rejecting the application for permission to sue as a pauper, can the court by a separate and subsequent order allow the applicant to pay the requisite court-fee under Section 149. Civil P. C., and treat the application as a plaint.'The facts given in that' judgment are that the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was rejected on 29-9-1934. On 1-10-1934, an application was made for review on the ground of discovery of some new material to prove that the applicant was a pauper. This application was rejected, but at the time of rejecting the application time was granted to pay the court-fee. Sulaiman, C. J., Bennet and Allsop, JJ., all agreed that, a...
Mt. Phool Kuer Vs. Manohar Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All223
Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by a Civil Judge, Agra, directing the appellant-judgment-debtor to pay Rs. 5,425/- to the respondents-decree-holders. The appeal arises in the following circumstances : 2. In 1936 the respondents' mother, Srimati Pem Kuer, instituted a suit for possession over property including two houses, one situated in village Semra and the other in village Kheria; the suit was decreed with costs by this Court on appeal on 26-10-1943. On 16-11-1943, she applied for execution of the decree through delivery of possession over the property. The appellant wanted to file an appeal against the decree to the Privy Council and on her furnishing security for the due performance of the decree under Order 45, Rule 13, Civil P. C., this Court stayed execution of the decree on 3-1-1944. In August, 1947, the security furnished by the appellant was found to be insufficient. Oil 20-8-1947, Pem Kuer applied for execution of the decree stating that the appellant wa...
Mata Bhikh and anr. Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All249; 1955CriLJ696
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The two applicants were convicted by the Panchayati Adalat of village Anua of offences under Sections 426 and 323, I. P. C. Their revision against that order was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as he did not find that any miscarriage of justice had taken place.2. It appears that the bench of the Panchayati Adalat which decided this case consisted of seven panches, including Naraindhar, the President of the Adalat. It is contended for the applicants that Section 49, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, authorises the Sarpanch to form a Bench of five panches from the panel for the trial of every case, and as this Bench consisted of more than five panches, it was not properly constituted and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide this case.3. It was also contended that the Panches included only one Panch from village Khem Patti, in which village both the complainant and the accused resided, while it should...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »