Allahabad Court December 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.
B. Ratan Chand Vs. Mst. Kalawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All364
Gurtu, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant-husband. The suit was brought by the respondent-wife and she claimed to recover Rupees 900/- as arrears for past maintenance and claimed future maintenance at Rs. 50/- per month. She alleged her husband's cruelty and she also alleged that he had remarried on or about July, 1935.2. The husband denied cruelty.3. The trial court framed an issue on cruelty and also an issue on the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to live separately and to get maintenance. On the issue of cruelty, the trial court came to the conclusion that the entire story that the husband was guilty of cruelty towards the wife was totally false. The trial court, however, held that since the husband had remarried, the wife was entitled, under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (Act No. XIX of 1946), to live separately and to receive maintenance. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- p...
Rohan Singh Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All254
Kidwai, J.1. On 31-3-1839 a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in favour of Badri Prasad against Rohan Singh. The decree provided that the amount due was Rs. 637/11/- and then directed'the amount thus determined shall be paid into Court in eight equal six monthly instalments with interest at 31 per cent. per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. Default of payment of any instalments shall entitle the plaintiff, to put the property mortgaged to sale.'No instalment was paid but on 12-9-1944 a sum of Rs. 10/- was paid and endorsed on the back of the decree. On 13-9-1944 the decree-holder intimated receipt of payment to the Court. On 10-9-1947 the decree-holder applied for preparation of a final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree. It may be noted that the preliminary decree had been amended, by an order, dated 6-7-1941 but neither party raised any question of limitation depending upon this amendment' in the course of these appeals.2. The learned Munsif rejected t...
Ram Surat Singh Vs. Ram Murat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All543
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff isentitled to one-eighth share in the property in suitand for delivery of possession over one-eighth shareof one item of the disputed property.The property in suit belonged to. oneBhagirathi Singh. On his death his widowSmt. Chandra Pati succeeded him. But she too diedin April, 1947, leaving the plaintiff Ram Surat Singhand Achhaibar and six others as the next collateralsof Bhagirathi Singh.There was also the contesting defendant Ragho Sewak Rai who has been arrayed as defendant No. 9 in the present suit and who claims to be the sister's son of Bhagirathi Singh and as such the nearest reversioner of Bhagirathi Singh. During her life-time Smt. Chandra Pati executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of Prithipal Singh and another person in respect of some of the property left by Bhagirathi Singh. This deed is dated 14-6-1917.On 31-5-1934 she executed a deed of relinquishment surrendering t...
Basist Singh Vs. Sm. Maharaji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All366
ORDERChaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was a dispute concerning mutation of names and the matter was, in due course, referred to the Panchayati Adalat. The Panchayati Adalat decided the case in favour of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 went up in revision against this order of the Panchayati Adalat and the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside that order on the ground that it had been signed only of 4 Panches and not by 5. That order appears to have been passed before the enactment of Section 77-A, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It further appears that this order was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner who had succeeded in the Panchayati Adalat. The petitioner, therefore, applied for a re-hearing of the revision on the ground that the order, quashing the judgment of the Pancnayati Adalat, had been passed without any notice having been given to the petitioner. This application has been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer who he...
Mirza Mehdi HusaIn Vs. Sikandar Nawab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All255
Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff claiming to have purchased a half share in the house in dispute sued for the partition of his share of the house. Sikandar Nawab defendant No. 1 claimed a half share in the house under a gift deed executed by Kazim Ali who was admittedly the owner of the house before it passed to the plaintiff or to the defendant.There was yet another defendant and he was defendant No. 2 Mehdi Husain, who claimed to be the owner of the entire house having purchased it in execution of a money decree held by him against Kazim Ali, the owner of the house. The suit-was contested by both the defendants. Sikandar Nawab claimed to be the owner of half of the house under a gift deed executed by Kazim Ali on 24-7-1937, while defendant No. 2, Mehdi Husain contended that he was the owner of the entire house and the gift deed obtained by defendant No. 1 was invalid. Various other defences, which are riot mate...
Nanak Chand and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All165
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. One hundred and. fifty persons filed a petition under sicle 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a suitable direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, namely the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Collector of District Rampur, the S. D. O. of Suar, district Rampur, and Tehsildar of Tehsil Suar, district Rampur, to withdraw the orders, dated the 2nd and 8th of February, 1954, and to refrain from dispossessing the petitioners, except through Courtof law. The petition alleged how they came to occupy certain, land in the district of Rampur with the consent and the authority of the State Government and their representative, the then Collector of Rampur. It is not necessary to enter into those allegations.The order, dated 2-2-1954, was by the District Magistrate of Rampur to the Sub-Divisional Officer Suar, directing him to eject refugees living in certain villages from all the lands by 1-3-1954, as the said lands were to be allott...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›