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.
Suraj Prasad Vs. Jagarnath Pd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All319
Malik, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 6-A, Court-fees Act, and involves two short points. 2. A suit was filed for partition of joint family property. under Section 7(iv-A) in suits for partition the plaintiff has to pay court-fees as provided for in that sub-section. It appears that the plaintiff's father had entered into a compromise with his other coparceners and a partition deed had been executed by the father not only for himself but on behalf of the minor son as his guardian. This was necessary as in the partition suit the minor had also been impleaded as a party. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for partition of the property ignoring the previous compromise dated 13-1-1952. The plaintiff's contention was that the partition deed dated 13-1-1952, was invalid and he was entitled therefore to ignore it. 4. The lower court has held that before the plaintiff could claim partition of the property it would be necessary for him to have it adju...
Mst. Suraj Dei Vs. Mst. Gulab Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All49
Malik, C.J. 1. The short point referred to the Pull Bench isas follows : 'Was the respondent's application for execution within time in respect of the earlier three years?' The facts of the case are that Shrimati Gulab Dei, respondent, filed a suit in the year 1920 against Sadhu Saran for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance. She claimed that she was the widow of a member of the joint Hindu family and after the death of her husband she was liable to be maintained from the funds of that family of which Sadhu Saran was in possession as Karta. On 13-12-1920, there was a compromise and a sum of money was paid towards the arrears and the future maintenance was fixed at Rs. 250/- per annum payable in four equal instalments falling due on the 31st of March, 30th of June, 30th of September and 31st of December in each year. A charge was also created on certain properties mentioned in the Compromise. A decree was passed by the court in terms of the compromise. 2. The judgment-debto...
Purshottam Singh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1954
Reported in: 1962CriLJ248
ORDERA.N. Mulla, J.1. This is an application by Purshottam Singh and six others for quashing the order of Commitment passed against them by a judicial Magistrate of Hardoi, The applicants were committed to the Court of Session under Section 302/149 and several other section, of the I.P.Code. The ground for seeking this relief is that the Magistrate violated the mandatory provisions of Section 208 Criminal Procedure Code and did not permit the applicants to examine certain witnesses in defence.2. The facts of the case disclose that after the prosecution evidence was over, the applicants, through a counsel, filed an application praying that, before their statements as accused persons be recorded, their witnesses in defence should be examined. This application was filed on. 24.12.1953 and a list of witnesses was submitted along witb this application.The Magistrate issued processes to the witnesses named in the list and fixed 9.1.1954 as the next date of Hearing. On 9.1.1954 only one witne...
State Vs. Ram Autar Chaudhry and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All138; 1955CriLJ394
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Munnoo, Budhoo, Arjun and Bam Narainof the offence under Section 302, I. P. C., and of RamAutar Chaudhari Kanurnan Prasad, Gopi LalSharma and Madan Lal Singhania of the offenceunder Section 302, read with Section 109, I. P. C. Arjun, opposite party No. 7, has not been ssrved of thenotice of this appeal and his case is, therefore, notbefore us at the moment. 2. One Radha Krishna, elder brother of Ram Autar Chaudhari respondent, was murdered at about 11-30 p. m. on the 30-7-1343 on the Mall in front of the District Intelligence Staff office, Kanpur, when he, accompanied by his wife and two infants and driver Sen Gupta, was returning from the dinner at the house of Nandan Prasad Saxeria. Ha and his wife received injuries when attacked by three or four persons with knives and hockey stick.3. The prosecution case is that the assailants had followed the jeep car in which Radha Krishna and his party were returning from ...
State Vs. Nihar Ranjan Guha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All608; 1955CriLJ1439
ORDERAsthana, J.1. The complainant in this case is one Shri Mohan Lal, a retired Station Master. In 1943 he sent Rs. 2,500/- to the Mica Mining and Trading Company Limited, Calcutta, for the purchase of one hundred shares of the value of Rs. 25/- per share: Shri Nikhil Ranjan Guha Thakurta was the Managing Director of this company at that time. The shares required by the complainant could not be purchased for some reason and so the sum of Rs. 2,500/- together with interest amounting to Rs. 2,612/S/- was sent to him by a cross-cheque. The complainant instead of presenting the cross-cheque through a bank wanted to cash it personally which he could not do He, therefore, returned the cheque to the above company. Thereafter, the company sent acircular letter intimating to the complainant that negotiations were going on for the purchase of the Premier Mica Company Limited; a copy of this circular letter has been filed in this case. After the receipt of this circular letter it appeal's that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›