Allahabad Court September 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.
Debi Prasad and ors. Vs. Khelawan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1957All67
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a special appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition. The respondents along with several other persons made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumariaganj, on 6-3-1953, praying that an enquiry be held as to their possession over certain land lying in village Tandauthi. It was not stated in the application under what provisions of law it was being made, but it is conceded that this was an application under the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act (Act 31 of 1952).Although the year was not mentioned in the application it was probably intended that the enquiry was to be made about the possession of the applicants in the year 1359 Pasli. Such an enquiry is envisaged in Section 4 of the aforesaid Act upon an application made within six months from the commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 7-11-1952 and the application having been made on 6-3-1953 was within time.2. Upon this application the Su...
Vishwa Mittra Vs. Dist. Judge, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All89
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. The applicant along with Sri Jagdish Rai and Allah Rakha, who have been impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to this petition, filed his nomination paper for ejection as a member to the Cantonment Board, Jhansi from Ward No. 3 in the election held in October 1954. On the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, the nomination paper of Sri Jagdish Rai, opposite party No. 2 was rejected by the Returning Officer and the applicant's and Allah Rakha's nomination papers were admitted and they were declared duly nominated.12-10-1954 was the date fixed for the withdrawal of the nomination papers and on that date SriAllah Rakha, opposite party No. 3 withdrew his candidature and as no other candidate was left in thefield, the Returning Officer declared the applicantduly elected on the 13-10-1954 under Rule 22, Cantonment Rules. An election petition was thereafterfiled by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicant on various grounds. The applicant put in hisdefence and...
Balroop Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All270; 1956CriLJ473
Desai, J.1. This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person against whom proceedings under Section 108, Criminal P. C., are pending at present in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur.2. The applicant in response to a summons or notice issued by the Court appeared before it on 21-6-54. On that date he was ordered to he released on bail; he furnished bail and was released from the custody of the Court. Proceedings dragged on for a long time and on 9-4-55 he appeared again before the Court when an order under Section 112 was read over to him. On 21-6-54 he had not filed any personal bond; he had only filed a bond of a surety. Consequently on 9-4-35 , he removed the defect by filing a persona! bond.He continued to be on bail still 26-5-55 when he filed an application written in his own handwriting stating that he did not want to remain on bail and that the bond filed by him should be cancelled. On this the Court cancelled not only the personal bond but als...
Bahar HusaIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All78; 1956CriLJ23
ORDERMukherji, J.1. This is an application, in revision by Bahar Husain and another, who stood sureties for one Mohammad Husain. Mohammad Husain was arrested and produced before a Magistrate at Mora-dabad where he applied for being enlarged on bail. The two applicants stood sureties on his behalf and they executed a surety bond on 9-9-1952. This surety bond was in the sum of Rs. 500/- and by this bond the sureties had undertaken to produce the accused in that Court and also to produce him before another Court if so ordered.It appears that the accused made his appearance in Court only once, that is to say, on 8-8-1952. Thereafter, the accused did not appear and several opportunities were given to the sureties to bring him to the Court but the sureties were unable to do so. The Court below, therefore, ordered the bond executed by the sureties to be forfeited to the State in the sum of Rs. 500/-.2. A revision was preferred by the sureties and the Court below has dismissed that revision. T...
Jagat Raj and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All117; 1956CriLJ179
ORDEROak, J. 1. This revision application arises out of a prosecution under Sections 427 and 506, I. P. C. Sunehra brought a complaint against Jagat Raj and three others with these allegations. The complainant had sown brinjal crop in Ms plot. On 6-11-1952, the complainant noticed that the four accused had been damaging his brinjal crop. Jagat Raj and Bhawania accused were uprooting the crop and throwing it into the river. Mathura and Haria accused were ploughing the field. When the complainant protested, the four accused threatened to kill him. All the four accused pleaded not guilty, and said that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 2. The case was originally on the file of a Tahsildar Magistrate. On 24-12-1952 he submitted a report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the effect that, he had no jurisdiction to try the case, as it fell under part I of Section 506, I. P. C. The Tahsildar probably meant that, the case fell under para (2) of Section 506. I. P. C., and so the...
L. Mangilal Vs. Barkatulla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All118
V.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against defendant 1, Madan Mohan who is the mortgagor, and Barkat Ullah, Mohammad Taj and Mohammad Yusuf who are transferees from hismother Chhutia, by virtue of a sale deed executed in their favour by her. 2. The property originally belonged to one Rai Bahadur Radha Kishen. He died leaving be-laind one sister, Smt. Chhutia, and a half sister Smt. Taro. Smt Chhutia had a son Madan Mohan and Smt. Ganga, a predeceased sister of Radha Kishen, had a son Govind Charan. On 19-6-35 a deed of surrender was executed by Smt. Chhutia in favour of her son Madan Mohan. On the same day a mortgage was executed by Madan Mohan in favour of Dr. Mangi Lal, the plaintiff-appellant in this case. This mortgage deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 1600/-. On the date when the suit was filed, the amount due had become Rs. 2768/- and the suit was accordingly brought on the basis of this mortgage for ther realisation of th...
Sudhakar Shastri Vs. State Through Shyam Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1955
Reported in: AIR1957All267; 1957CriLJ492
Desai, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad on appeal from a judgment of Shri Mahabir Prasad, a Special Magistrate first class convicting the opposite-parties under Section 379, I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment of the Special Magistrate as a nullity and ordered the case to be retried by another Magistrate in the following circumstances.The Special Magistrate was conferred first class magisterial powers under some notification. On 30-11-1950 another notification was issued by the State Government extending those powers for a further period ending on 31-12-1953. The Special Magistrate tried the case against the opposite-parties and convicted them on 20-3-1953. In the Gazette of 21-3-1953, a notification dated 14-3-1953 was published; it was stated in the notification that the first class powers conferred upon the Special Magistrate under the notification of 30-11-1950 were withdrawn under Section 41...
Bal Mukandji Maharaj Vs. Gokaran Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All124
Roy, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. A suit was instituted in the Revenue Court under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 by Rani Roop Kunwar for the recovery for profits for the years 1341, 1342 and 1343 Fasli of her share of property of Mohal Bhup Singh Kabza No. 1 in village Rachhoha against Diwan Gokaran Singh son of Diwan Chet Singh, the lambardar of the Mohal.The defence raised on behalf of Diwan Gokaran Singh was that the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Th. Thamman Singh died in a state of jointness with the defendant, and the property in suit being joint ancestral property, the plaintiff could not succeed to it, and the property devolved on Diwan Gokaran Singh by a right of survivorship under the rules of the Mitakshara law.The Revenue Court framed an issue, namely, whether the family ceased to be a joint family about 20 years ago in the life-time of Th. Thamman Singh, and the Revenue Court referred that issue to the Civil Court for a finding. When the issue ...
Durvijay Singh and ors. Vs. Munni NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All119
Upadhya, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for damages. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the tenants and in culti-vatory possession of certain agricultural plots and after they had collected the harvest of 1351F., on the threshing floor, the defendants took it away. In the next year i. e., 1352F., proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., are said to have been started at the instance of the defendants. The learned Magistrate passed an order attaching the plots in dispute, and the plots having remained under attachment for sometime, the plaintiffs could not cultivate them during 1352F., and thereby they suffered a loss which is claimed in this suit. The damage assessed by the plaintiffs amounted to Rs. 600/- each year, and a total claim of Rs. 1200/- for the two years mentioned above, was made by the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower appellate court found that the claim put forward by the defendants to ...
Barkat Ali and ors. Vs. Mumtaz Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All128
Kidwai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondents for a declaration that they are owners to the extent of a half share in plots Nos. 745 and 747 situated in village Mandah in the district of Partabgarh.2. The trial Court found that the title of the plaintiffs was not established and it dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs went up in appeal. The learned lower appellate Court found that the plaintiffs' title was established and that there was no question of res judicata by reason of any previous litigation.It consequently reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendants came up in second appeal. One of them Mohd. Ali Khan, appellant 2 died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs not having been brought on the record the appeal so far as his share is concerned abated.3. It seems that as eaxly as 23-5-1869 thetaluqdar of Madhpur granted a patta istamrariof certain plots of cultivatory land including plotNo. 185 (which n...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »