Allahabad Court November 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.
Lachmi and ors. Vs. Somaroo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All122; 1955CriLJ313
Malik, C.J. 1. This case was referred to a Full Bench by a learned Single Judge, as in his view, an important question of law arose for decision which was likely to arise in other cases. 2. A complaint was filed by one Sumaroo against Roop Narain and his two sons, Lachmi and Bhaggan, under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Sarpanch constituted a Bench of five Panches whose names were Parshotam Dass, Chairman, Raghunath Prasad, Misri Lal, Harihar Prasad and Ram Lakhan. During the course of the proceedings, it appears that two of the Panches, Harihar Prasad and Ram Lakhan, were replaced by two new panches Bhagirathi and Ram Adhar Singh. As regards Bhagirathi there is a paper on the file, paper No. 21 from which it appears that a report was made by Parshotam Dass, Chairman, and Misri Lal that Harihar Prasad was not in Banaras and that, therefore, some difficulty was felt in getting the quorum. On this report the Sarpanch passed an order that the only other panch available fro...
Devendar Kumar Bharti Vs. Mahanta Raghuraj Bharti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All154
Malik, C.J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 115. Civil P. C., by one of the defendants Devendra Kumar Bharti against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Basti granting time to the Opposite party No. 1 upto 15-3-1947, for payment of the necessary court-fees. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Order 33 of Civil P. C., (Act 5 of 1908) for permission to institute the suit in forma pauperis. Notice of this application was issued to the other side and after recording the evidence of the parties, the court came to the conclusion that the plantiff was not a pauper and was in a position to pay the requisite court-fee. While rejecting the application, the court granted time to the Opposite party No. 1 to pay the court-fee. It was urged that this the court could not do. The order against which this revision application has been filed reads as follows:'The application for permission to sue in forma pauperis is rejected accordingly with costs to the opposite part...
Soham Singh Jangpangi and ors. Vs. Kunwar Tikendra Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All65
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against a decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Almora dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that 'Mauza Bangpani, Patti Malla Askot, is a Pakka Khaikari village of the plaintiffs and that they have been wrongly recorded as Kachcha Khaikars in the revenue papers during the settlement of 1940-41 by the mistake of the Settlement Officer.' 2. The facts, so far as they could be ascertained from the papers on the record, are that there was a village Juma which was the Asal Mauza. Jalajibli was the Lagga of this village and there were in it three Thoks, Bangpani, Bans Bagar and Mori Bagar. All this property had been given by the British Government to the Rajwarhs of Askot as their zamindari. 3. On 7-4-1865, the Rajwarhs of Askot executeed a Tasallinama in favour of one Dhanu, theancestor of the plaintiffs, to cultivate the irrigatedland in Bangpani on the following terms: 'As you reside within our 'ilaqa', and as regard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›