Skip to content

Allahabad Court July 1955 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.

Jul 22 1955

Oudh Behari Singh Vs. Gajadhar Jaipuriya and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-22-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All698

Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Ral Manmatha Nath Bose and others, defendants 2 to 5, held the enclosure bearing municipal No. D-37/84 situate in Mohalla Baradeo, Banaras, on parjawatdari tenure from Babu Oudh Behari Singh and others. They executed a sale deed of their rights of possession to the parjawat land to Gajadhar Jaipuriya, defendant 1 under a sale deed scribed on 29-3-1941 and registered on 1-4-1941.2. Oudh Behari Singh instituted the suit against defendants 1 to 6 pre-empting the aforesaid sale alleging that custom of pre-emption prevailed in the entire city of Banaras and that he had the right to pre-empt on account of his owning property adjacent to this enclosure which had been sold.3. Gajadhar Jaipuriya, the vendee, contested the suit on various grounds, two of which were that the plaintiff had not made the necessary demands required by the Muhammadan Law of Pre-emption and that the plaintiff had no right to take possession by dispossessing the parjawatdar in, possession, on the p...


Jul 21 1955

Nathumal Vs. Mohd. Nazir Beg and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-21-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All584

Mootham, C.J. 1. This is an appeal, by leave, from a judgment o learned Judge of this Court dated 5-12-1947. 2. On 24-1-1941, the appellant purchased from one Kailash Chand the latter's two-thirds share of a house. Thereafter the appellant brought a suit against the respondents for partition of his two-thirds share. The suit was contested, the second respondent's defence being that he was the owner of Kailash Chand's two-thirds share, having purchased that share at two sales in execution of two decrees obtained against Kailash Chand, then a minor. He purchased a half share on 5-4-1939, and the remaining one-sixth share on 16-8-1940. In answer to this defence the appellant averred that the decrees on the basis of which the sales to the second respondent were effected were void, as Kailash Chand was not properly represented in the suits. It is common ground that Kailash Chand was a major on 24-1-1941, the date of the conveyance to the appellant. 3. We are concerned in this appeal only wi...


Jul 21 1955

Nagoo and anr. Vs. Pt. Shiv Dularey Dixit and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-21-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All665

Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage in question was executed by one Kalika for himself and as guardian of his two sons, Thakur and Kedar and also by his two other sons, Nagu and Bhola who were then major. Nagu and Bhola mortgagors filed a suit under Section 33, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, for a declaration of the amount due to the mortgagee under the mortgage.This was in 1942. The plaintiffs claimed that they were agriculturists and entitled to sue for accounts. The parties came to terms and entered into a compromise which may be quoted here in full:'(a) The total balance due under the mortgage deed, the basis of the suit, has been settled at Rs. 700/- regarding mortgage deed and Rs. 25/-lawyer's fee of the defendant, total Rs. 725/-, (b) The full amount settled viz. Rs. 725/-mentioned above between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 will be paid to defendant No. 1 through his counsel by hand in 2 monthly i...


Jul 20 1955

Kamra Vs. Pt. Murari Lal

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-20-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All694; 1955CriLJ1551

ORDEROak, J. 1. This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut arises out of a proceeding under Section 476, Cr P. C. The matter has arisen thus. (2) Kamra filed a complaint under Ss. 447, 352 and 506, I. P. C. against Smt. Rajdulari and others. That criminal case ended in the acquittal of the accused persons. Subsequently Murari Lal, on behalf of Smt. Rajdulari, moved the learned Magistrate for taking proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. against Kamra and Shabbir Ahmad on on the ground that, they had given false evidence on oath during the trial. The learned Magistrate (Sri Harihar Prasad) rejected the application under Section 476, Cr. P. C. Against that order passed by Sri Harihar Prasad two separate appeals were filed. They were numbered as 69 and 70 of 1952. The two appeals were directed against Kamra and Shabbir Ahmad. Those two appeals were disposed of on 31-7-1952 by Sri Kazmi, who was then the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. He set aside Sri Harihar Prasad's o...


Jul 15 1955

Gauri Shanker and anr. Vs. JamilluddIn and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-15-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All664

Randhir Singh, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of an application made for the passing of a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P. C.2. It appears that a preliminary decree under Order 34, Rule 1, Civil P. C. was obtained jointly by Cauri Shankar and Maharaj Din on the basis of a mortgage deed, in 1934. 'Usual six months time for payment was granted. This decree was subsequently amended under the Agriculturists' Relief Act and intsalments were granted. In 1942 the plaintiffs-decree-holders applied for the passing of a final decree and when this application was pending an application for amendment of the decree under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act was made by the judgment-debtors.The decree was once again ordered to be amended under the Debt Redemption Act and an order was passed on the application of the decree-holders for a final decree in the following words :'Decree has been amended. Consigned to records. Let the decree-holder file fresh application.''3. This order was...


Jul 14 1955

Vimal Kishore Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-14-1955

Reported in: AIR1956All56; 1956CriLJ13

Oak, J.1. This is a petition by Vimal Kishore Mehrotra under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction or writ in, the nature of habeas corpus. The petitioner is one of the General Secretaries of Suti Mill Mazdoor Sabha, Kanpur. The workers of textile mills at Kanpur went on strike from the early part of May, 1955. The strike lasted for several weeks. The petitioner was arrested on 28-4-55 but was released on 11-5-1955. The petitioner was again arrested by the police on 18-5-1955. He was produced before a Magistrate on 19-5-1955.The petitioner was informed that he had been arrested under Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Since then he is in jail custody. According to the petitioner, his arrest and detention are illegal for a variety of reasons. He, therefore, prays that he be set at liberty, and orders for detention be quashed. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of his petition.2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The State of Uttar Pradesh is resp...


Jul 14 1955

Jagannath Singh and anr. Vs. Bidheshi and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Jul-14-1955

Reported in: AIR1955All712; 1955CriLJ1557

ORDERJames, J.1. In a case under Section 145, Criminal P. C., Jagannath Singh and another were one contesting party and Bidheshi Chamar and others the other party. The Magistrate held Bidheshi Chamar etc., to be in possession of the disputed property and forbade the other party from interfering with their possession. Jagannath Singh and his colleague went up in revision to the Sessions Judge,' who after hearing the parties and examining the evidence made a reference to this Court recommending that the Magistrate's order be set aside.The reference came up for hearing before me on 7-3-1955. That day Jagannath Singh and his colleague were duly represented by counsel, but Bidhpshi Chamar etc., were found absent despite personal service, nor was there any counsel to represent them. After examining the Sessions Judge's order of reference and hearing the counsel for Jagannath Singh I held that the reference was a perfectly correct one; accordingly I accepted it.Subsequently Bidheshi Chamar, e...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial