Allahabad Court March 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.
Debi Sahai Vs. Ganga Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All749
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of money as the price of a tree which was alleged to have belonged to the plaintiffs and which had been taken away by the defendant-appellant with the intention of committing theft. The suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif. The price of the tree as fixed by the plaintiffs was Rs. 100/- only. The defendant objected that the suit was cognizable by the Panchayati Adalat under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Thereupon the plaintiffs-respondents made an application for amendment of the plaint saying that the valuation of the tree was Rs. 110/- and an amendment may be made accordingly in the plaint. This application was contested by the defendant-appellant, and it was rejected by the Munsif. After the rejection of the application, the plaint was bound to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court, and it was so returned.2. After the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs-responden...
Kunj Behari and anr. Vs. Shia College, Lucknow and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All96
Malik, C.J. 1. This case raises a very short point. There was a compromise decree obtainedby the Shia College against one Maiku Lal with respect to arrears of rent. This decree was obtained from the Court of the Revenue Officer, Lucknow. The decree was put in execution. On 29-9-1944, the Revenue Officer evidently acting under Section 39, C. P. C., transferred the execution case to the sale officer, Lucknow, for sale of the property which was agricultural land. On 22-10-1945, the Sale Officer sold this land to the respondent No. 2. On 15-3-1946, the sale was confirmed. On 28-9-1945, the judgment-debtor had made an application to the Revenue Officer that the decree had been obtained by fraud. Out of the sum claimed he said he had paid Rs. 130 to the plaintiff before the date of the decree. The judgment-debtor, therefore, prayed that inquiry -should be held and in the meantime the proceedings before the Sale Officer should remain stayed. The Revenue Officer issued notice of this applicati...
Sm. NaraIn Devi Vs. Hakim Mohd. AmIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All259
Malik, C.J.1. The plaintiff purchased a house situate at Lucknow on 13-1-1945. Hakim Abdul Hasib was a tenant of this house and had been, paying rent at the rate of Rs. 65/- plus the Municipal taxes to the vendor. After the purchase, Hakim Abdul Hasib paid rent to the plaintiff.2. On 15-10-1946 the plaintiff gave a notice under Section 5 (2), U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, that the rent was enhanced and it would be payable at the rate of Rs. 81/4/- per month. The defendant agreed to pay the rent at the enhanced rate.3. In 1947 the plaintiff made an application to the District Magistrate for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the defendant. On 11-8-1947 permission was granted, but with respect to only a 'portion of the house. The plaintiff thereupon made a fresh application and wanted permission to eject the defendant from the whole house. On 20-3-1948 permission was granted in these terms:'I, therefore, hold that the applicant should by mutual agreement or some other w...
Surendra Nath Vs. Manik Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All750
Malik, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and the defendant is his tenant. On 22-9-1945, the plaintiff filed a suit No. 282 of 1945 in the court of the Munsif Havali, Lucknow, for the ejectment of the defendant. The parties entered into a compromise and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 31-12-1945. The decree provided that the defendant had agreed to vacate the house on 1-8-1946. The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises and the plaintiff filed an application for execution. The defendant thereupon filed an objection under Section 7, U. P. Ordinance No. 111 of 1946, which had come into force on 1-8-1946, that he could not be ejected from the premises except in accordance with the provisions of that section.Section 7 provided that no decree for the eviction of a tenant from any accommodation passed before the commencement of the Ordinance shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant be...
Ram Lakhan Lal Vs. Addl. Commr., Gorakhpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All606
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 22-12-1953.2. According to the petitioner, one Hari Saran Rastogi was the tenant of a shop owned by the petitioner and the tenant was carrying on a business in that shop under the name and style of 'Golden Biscuit Factory'. Hari Saran on 1-7-1953 intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Gorakhpur that he had sold the entire goods of the shop along with its goodwill to opposite party No. 2, Hanuman Prasad. Even before this intimation was sent by Hari Saran, an application had been made on behalf of a firm, Mata Prasad A]odhya Prasad, for allotment of this shop in their favour, The petitioner also applied for its allotment and a third application for allotment was made by Hanuman Prasad, the purchaser of the Golden Biscuit Factory.While these applications were pending, Hari Sa...
Sm. Ramditi Kharbanda Vs. Collector, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All646
ORDERV. Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of opposite party No. 4, the liquidator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act in connection with the liquidation of the Housing and House Mortgage Society Limited, Allahabad, passed on the 1st August 1952 ordering realisation of a sum of Rs. 9,379/10/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Further, a writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to the opposite parties to furnish to the petitioner all the particulars of the claims of the Society in liquidation against the petitioner or her husband and to take proceedings in a civil Court according to law in respect of these claims.2. It appears that Shri M. L. Kharbanda, the husband of the petitioner, was a member of a limited co-operative society known as the Housing and House Mortgage Society Limited, Allahabad. After having become a member of the Society he obtained a...
State Vs. Dalsingar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All669
Roy, J.1. This is a reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Faizabad under Section 307, Criminal P. C. Seven persons were put on trial before him under Section 435, Penal Code. The trial was by a jury. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge disagreed with that verdict and has made the reference on the ground that the verdict of the jury was perverse and was not sustainable upon the evidence that was produced in the case.2. The case for the prosecution was briefly this : Bhagwati Prasad Singh, a resident of village Pratappur, carried on fairly extensive cultivation in another village Masodha where he has his own 'chhawni'. The accused are his 'pattidars' who have been continuously litigating with him for several years. On the night of the 16th and 17th of April, 1950, while Bhagwati Prasad Singh had gone to another village to attend the 'tilak' ceremony of his relation, the accused at about midnight entered his 'khalyan' in village Mas...
Smt. Dhanwanti and ors. Vs. State Through Khan Bahadur Shafi Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All63; 1955CriLJ192
ORDERAsthana, J.1. Chhitariya along with three other persons was sent up for trial under Section 457, I.P.C., in respect of certain property. Chhitariya died during the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate and so far as he was concerned the case abated against him. The other three accused were discharged under Section 253 (1), Cr. P. C. After their discharge the property which was alleged to have been recovered from, the possession of Chhitariya deceased along with some other property was ordered to be returned to the complainant. Bhupali and Thakuri, sons of Chhitariya, and Srimati Dhanwanti his widow, filed a revision against this order before the Sessions Judge, Aligarh.Their contention was that as the case against Chhitariya had abated the property which had been recovered from his possession should have been restored to them as they were his legal heirs. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the Magistrate in respect of the property mentioned in Ex. P4. He, ho...
British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All550; (1954)IILLJ275All
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a public limited company which carried on the business of manufacturing and selling textiles and other commercial products. A branch of the petitioner's business is carried on under the name of Cooper Alien & Co., and on 13-4-1951, the petitioner issued a notice to its employees in that branch informing them that the directors had sanctioned the payment of a gratuity (by which, it is common ground, is meant what is ordinarily termed a bonus) in respect of the year ending 31-12-1950, equal to three months' basic wages. Certain qualifying conditions were laid down in the notice which further stated that acceptance of the gratuity would be held to imply that it had been accepted in full and complete satisfaction of all claims for a gratuity in respect of that period. Payment of the bonus was made accordingly by the peti-tioner in May, 1951, to all the employees of Cooper Alien & Co., who qualified therefor...
Ram Rakshpal Vs. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1954
Reported in: AIR1954All691
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is an appeal under Chapter IX, rule 10, of the Rules of Court & Section 10 of the Letters Patent,read with Articles 225 and 372 of the Constitution of India. 2. Ram Rakshpal, the appellant, filed an application, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 1953, for contempt of court proceedings against certain parties for reasons given in the affidavit accompanying the application. The application was dismissed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as having no force. This is an appeal against that order. 3. We heard the learned counsel on the question about the maintainability of the appeal. He relies on clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court. The relevant portion of that clause is: 'And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Allahabad from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›