Allahabad Court September 1954 Judgments
Mohd. Wasi and anr. Vs. Bachchan Sahib and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All68
Malik, C.J. 1. This appeal was cognizable by a single Judge but on an application made on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that the case involves a general question of importance affecting the Shias and Sunnis, two sects of the Muslim community, it was ordered to be heard by a Bench of three Judges.2. The two plaintiffs belong to the Sunni sect and are residents of Qasba Mahmudabad, District Sitapur. They brought a suit in their representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. on behalf of the Sunnis of Qasba Mahmudabad against the first five defendants in their representative capacity as representing the Shia Muslims of the same Qasba. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it was said'that as all the Sunni Muslims of Mahmudabad have the right to get a permanent injunction issued the plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. seek permission to file the suit on behalf of all the Sunnis of Qasba Mahmudabad, and as all the Shias of Mahmudabad are prepared to contest the suit, perm...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All189; 1955CriLJ473
1. Appellants Thakur, Bansi Lal, Bhallar, Sangam, Ghulam, Baleshwar and Fakirey have been convicted under Sections 302/149, I. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Bahraich. Bhallar and Baleshwar have been sentenced to death while the other five appellants have been transported for life. The two appellants Bhallar and Baleshwar are further convicted under Section 148, I. P. C., and sentenced to 3 years' R. I. The other five appellants are further convicted under Section 147 and sentenced to one year's R. I. each. All these sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The seven appellants belong to one family group. Bansi Lal and Thakur are brothers. Fakirey, Ghulam and Baleshwar are the sons of Thakur while Sangam and Bhallar are the sons of Bansi Lal. 3. The prosecution case is that one Kanta Prasad Kurmi was the Pradhan of village Tulshipur, police station Sonwan, district Bahraich. In his capacity as Pradhan of the village he had filed a civil suit in the court of the Munsif Bahraich against Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Chandra Bajpai and anr. Vs. Triloki Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All74
Malik, C.J.1. This is a very simple matter.2. An election petition was filed on 10-6-1952and in that petition certain allegations were madein paragraph 7C the first portion of which aloneneed be quoted: 'That the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of certain government servants.' The rest of the paragraph deals with two incidents of 16th December and 27th December, 1951, with which we are not concerned.3. On 27-2-1953, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in which the relevant prayer was as follows:'Therefore the petitioners pray that under Section 83 (3) he be allowed to amend the details of para. 7C by adding the words 'village headman' with their names and the fact that they worked and issued appeal and subsequently they became polling agents of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and for this the petitioners shall ever feel grateful.'This application was granted by an order dated 28-11-1953, by the majority, the advocate member and...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Brijendra Swarup Vs. Election Tribunal at Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All129
Malik, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Dr. Brijendra Swarup.2. There was an election held for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council from the U. P. Graduates Constituency (West), in the year 1952 and three candidates were elected, they being Dr. Brijendra Swarup, Dr. Ishwari Prasad and Shri Beni Prasad Tandon. Sri Batan Shukla challenged the election by a petition which he filed on 4-8-1952. The relief claimed by him in the petition was to the following effect:'It is, therefore, prayed that (1) the election tothe U. P. Legislative Council from U. P.Graduates (West) Constituency be declaredwholly void;'The petitioner also claimed costs and any other consequential relief that may be granted to him. The relief claimed was under Section 84(c), Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951). Section 84 is as follows:'84. A petitioner may claim any 'one' of the following declarations: (a) That the election of the returned candidate is void...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Adhar and ors. Vs. District Board of Allahabad Through Its Preside ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All184
Malik, C.J. 1. These Special Appeals against the orders passed in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by various kankar-lime kiln owners. The District Board of Allahabad has under the bye-laws enhanced the licence fee for running a lime kiln from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 50/-. The above noted amendment to the bye-laws was printed in the U. P. Gazette dated 1-12-1951. Some of the applicants who owned these kilns did not take out a license as required under Notification No. 934/XXI-37 (2)-50, dated 23-11-1951, and they were prosecuted for having run these kilns without a proper license. The contention on behalf of these applicants was that the imposition of Rs. 50/- as license fee per year was not a license fee but was a tax and was beyond the powers of the District Board.2. One of these petitions -- Writ Petition No. 108 of 1953 -- came up before Mr. Justice Bhargava, who dismissed it on 22-2-1954, on the ground that remedy by way of a regular suit was much more a...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Mst. Champa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All226
Malik, C.J.1. This case has had a chequered history. One Badri Prasad had obtained a decree against Suit. Champa, Ram Kishen and Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad being a lunatic and Ram Kishen being a minor, they were sued under the guardianship of Smt. Champa, wife of Gaya Prasad. The suit was decreed and in execution of the decree, a house fetching a rent of Rs. 25/- per mensem was sold at auction on 28-8-1940. The highest bid of Rs. 2,425/- was of the appellants, Hira Lal and two others. The property was sold through a firm of auctioneers and not through the court Amin. The auction-purchasers deposited 25 per cent. on the amount of the purchase-money with the auctioneers appointed by the court. On 11-9-1940, they gave a cheque for the balance to the same auctioneers. The auctioneers, however, did not deposit the amount in court till 14-9-1940. On 5-9-1940, the judgment-debtors filed certain objections under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. It was alleged that the property had been sold for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkhan Vs. Mahar Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All307
Malik, C.J.1. This is a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in any manner with plaintiff's possession of certain plots detailed in the plaint. The suit was filed in the Court of the Second Civil Judge of Meerut. The defendants filed a written statement in which, among other pleas, a plea was taken that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Judge framed a number of issues and under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code he decided to try the issue of law first.2. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code is as follows : 'Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined.'On 2-11...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Latif-un-nissa and ors. Vs. Mst. Khair-un-nissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All53
Malik, C.J.1. Civil Revision No. 474 of 1946 filed by the legal representatives of Mohammad Baksh came up before a Bench of this Court on 14-9-1950, and, while my brother Agarwala, J. was of the opinion that the applicants could continue the proceedings if they were prepared to pay the court-fee, or if they could allege and establish that they were paupers and were not able to pay the court-fee, the other learned Judge, Pearey Lal Bhar-gava J. took a contrary view.2. By reason of the difference of opinion twoquestions of law were formulated and referred toa larger Bench for decision. The points are: '1. Whether the heirs of a person, who has made an application for leave to sue in 'forma pau-peris' under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dies before the application is allowed or refused under Rule 7 of the Order, can continue the proceedings in their own right either upon showing that they are themselves paupers or by offering to pay court-fee on the plaint? If the answer be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Kalpa Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All187
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This first appeal from an order raises some points of interest, which are not wholly free from difficulty. 2. It appears that a suit was instituted by one Sita Ram on 14-3-1950, against the appellant (defendant No. 1) and one Chhedi Lal, on the allegations that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the estate of Shrimati Kalpa's deceased husband and that Shrimati Kalpa, though a life owner, was wasting property in collusion with defendant No. 2. The appellant (defendant No. 1) did not enter appearance but defendant No. 2 filed a written statement on 17-4-1950. On 16-5-1950, a petition of compromise is said to have been filed by the plaintiff and the appellant (defendant No. 1) and verified before the Court on 29-5-1950. On 29-5.-1950, an order was passed that the case be put up on 7-7-1950, for the disposal of an application for amendment of the plaint. It was also mentioned in the order that the orders on compromise will be passed at the time of judgment. A...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn (Dead) and After Him His Son Reotinandan Vs. Faqir Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955All22
Malik, C.J.1. A mortgage deed without possession was executed by the applicant in favour of the decree-holder opposite party, Faqir Chand, on 2-2-1926. A suit was brought on this mortgage in the year 1939 and a decree obtained on 25-9-1939. On 28-1-1941, an application was made under Section 8, U. P. Debt Redemption Act 13 of 1940 for amendment of the decree. On 19-4-1941, the decree-holder made a declaration that the decree shall not be executed against the land, agricultural produce or person of the agriculturist. On the declaration having been made the Court refused to amend the decree. That order was affirmed by the learned Civil Judge and this civil revision was filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 115, Civil P. C.It was referred by a learned single Judge to a Division Bench and the Division Bench has referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench:'Whether or not a decree recoverable from an agriculturist can be amended under the provisions of the U. P...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »