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.
Mt. Abida Khatoon and ors. Vs. Chote Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All155; 1956CriLJ193
ORDERAgarwala, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of proceedings taken at the instance of the applicants under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. There was a civil suit No. 352 of 1942, decided by the court of Munsif, Shikohabad, for ejectment from a house and arrears of rent. The suit was decreed on 30-9-1943, Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 476, Cr. P. C., against four of the defendants and eight others for their prosecution under Section 193 and other sections of the Penal Code. On 25-5-1946 this application was allowed ex parte and an order for the prosecution of the opposite praties was made.They went up in appeal to the District Judge who, however, dismissed the appeal for default of appearance on 11-12-1948. The defendants then filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order of dismissal and for restoration of the case to its original number. This application was allowed. In the present application in revision the plaint...
Raghbir Singh Vs. Municipal Board of Hardwar Union, Hardwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All324
ORDERMehrotra, J. 1. These petitions Have been filed on behalf of the owners of motor vehicles plying their vehicles on Hardwar Rishikesh route for following reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution :1. A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the orders contained in Notification No. 830/XXIJI-16(C)-53-54 dated 22-2-1955 and to suspend the operation of the order container in Notification No. 4188/XI-416-41 and No. 4188(7)/XI-416-41 dated 29-10-1941 to the extent that they purport to levy toll taxi on vehicles entering the limits of the Hardwar Union Municipality with passengers. 2. A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent 1 not to levy toll tax on the petitioners in respect of the motor vehicles on their entering or leaving the limits of Hardwar Union Municipality with passengers. 2. In the affidavit filed in support, of the petition it is alleged that from 24-3-1955 whenever the applicants' vehicles carrying passengers goes from Rish...
Risal and anr. Vs. the Government of the U.P., Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All704
Agarwala, J.1. This is a special appeal against the judgment, of a learned single judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition.2. The respondents 3 and 4, Mamraj and Balwant, filed four suits under Section 49, U. P. Tenancy Act against the appellants, Risal and Balwant (this Balwant is not to be confused for respondent) for partition of their half share in the holdings in dispute. The appellants' case was that the aforesaid respondents had only a one-third share and not a half share in the holdings.All the four suits Were tried together and evidence was recorded only in one of them. They were disposed of by a common judgment, the Assistant Collector holding that respondents 3 and 4 had only a one-third share. These respondents preferred four appeals in the court of the Add-tional Commissioner who allowed the appeals upon the finding that respondents 3 and 4 had a half share in the holdings. Then the appellants went up in second appeal co the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of t...
Sm. Kawal Patti and anr. Vs. Ram Jokhan Upadhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All150
Roy, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal. The facts giving rise to it may be briefly stated as follows: 2. On 4-5-1950, the plaintiffs executed a pronote in the sum of Rs. 500/- in favour of Ram Jokhan Upadhya the defendant. The pronote carried interest at six per cent. per annum and the money was payable on demand. Subsequent to the execution of that pronote the creditor was put in possession of two plots of land having a total area of 0.71 acres. The land was the 'khudkasht' of the debtors. The crditor filed a suit No. 207 of 1953 in the Court of Small Causes, Gorakhpur, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 500/- together with Rs. 50/-, as interest on the pronote. In defence the debtors contended that they had borrowed only Rs. 100/- and had given their thumb-impression on ablank form of pronote, and that the amount had been inflated. 3. The debtors filed another suit No. 1052 of 1953 in the Court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur against the creditor in which they alleged that they had bor...
B.N. Khosla Vs. S.L. Nayar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All131
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision. The plaintiff brought a suit against the opposite party for arrears of rent on account of a house of which the plaintiff was the owner and the opposite party was the tenant. Both the parties have come from the Punjab. The plaintiff resides in Dehra Dun while the opposite party resides at Jullundhar. The suit was filed in the Court of small causes and has been dismissed on account of want of jurisdiction in that Court.The learned Judge did not consider at all the applicability of the Displaced Persons (Institution Of Suits) Act of 1947. Under Section 4(ii) of this Act the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit at Dehra Dun because the cause of action had arisen only at Lahore, which is now situate in the West Pakistan.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party relied on Section 4 Clause (ii) of the Act and urged that the suit related to an immovable property and, therefore, Section 4 will not apply. I am of opinio...
Mohammad HasnaIn Vs. Yusuf HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All121
Randir Singh, J. 1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house and for arrears of rent. The suit came up for settlement of issues on 16-9-1952, before the trial Court. An application was made by the parties for time up to 16-10-1952, on the allegation that the parties were having a talk of a compromise and the compromise, if made, would be filed on 16-10-1952. The compromise, according to the plaintiffs' allegation, was arrived at by plaintiff 1 and the defendant and in pursuance of that compromise a sum of Rs. 108/- together with Rs. 12/- was paid to plaintiff 1 and a compromise deed was written out. The compromise, though made on 16-9-1952, presumably after the application for grant of time had been made, could not, however, be filed in Court as it required the approval and signatures of the other two plaintiffs who were not present in Court. After 16-9-1952, the signatures of the other two plaintiffs were obtained and the compromise which had been writte...
Lala Ram Niwas Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All137
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition. 2. The appellant was elected as the President of the Kashipur Municipal Board in the elections held in October, 1953. He continued to act as such till he was suspended from that office by an order of the Government served on him, on 1-10-1954. On 21-9-1954, two orders appear to have been passed by the Government, one was G. O. No. 289F(i)/XI-A-616/1954. This G. O. was from Shri H. L. Bhargava, Under Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh, to the District Magistrate, Naini Tal. It required the? District Magistrate to call upon the appellant to show cause, within two weeks of the receipt of the order, why he should not be removed from the office of the President of the board under Section 48(2) U. P. Municipalities Act on account of the charges-set forth in an enclosed list. The enclosed list contained 11 charges. The explanation when received was to be forwarded to Governm...
Ram Dhiraj Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All167; 1956CriLJ362
ORDERRandhir Singh, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Magistrate, convicting the applicant under Section 34, Police Act and sentencing him to a fine of Re 1/-.2. It appears that the applicant was charged with an offence of obstruction to road by placing his rickshaw on the road on 20-9-1953, at 11-30 A.M. The case was tried summarily under Section 34, Police Act and the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty and was sentenced to a fine of Re. 1/- by the Magistrate.The applicant went up in revision to the Sessions Judge and he stoutly denied having entered any plea of guilty in the trial Court and it was urged on his behalf that the record of the plea of guilty was wrong. The Sessions Judge, however, asked for a report from the Magistrate ,and declined to interfere. The applicant, has now come up in revision to this Court.3. In the application for revision made by the applicant, the applicant has given details of certain proceedings taken in this Court ...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. Central Talkies, Collectorganj, Kanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All187
Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of a suit for the ejectment of the defendant, the Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur from the premises No. 73/22 old 73/28 situate in Collector-ganj and for a decree for Rs. 4500/- damages for use and occupation from 1-11-1948, upto the date of the suit at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. 2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was the tenant of the Central Talkies from before 1942 and that the terms for a fresh lease were settled in May 1943. The contemplated lease was not actually executed. The monthly rental, however was Rs. 550 per mensem and was paid by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment in 1946 but withdrew it on the coming into force of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. III of 1947). He then obtained permission of the District Magistrate, Kanpur, for ejecting the defendant and thereafter, giving a notice to the defendant, instituted the present suit ...
Mst. Hosnaki and ors. Vs. State Through Sheo Baran Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1956All81; 1956CriLJ168
1. For the reasons which we shall give later we allow this application, set aside the order dated 18-9-1953 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and direct him to rehear the case. He must receive all the evidence that is produced before him by the parties, decide which party was in possession of the property in dispute on the date on which he had passed the preliminary order and pass an order under Section 145(8) in his favour. He must again attach the property in dispute for the pendency ttf the proceedings before him. The record should be returned to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as soon as possible.Desai, J.This is an application in revision against an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, in a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The Judicial Magistrate on being satisfied on 23-6-1952 that there existed, a dispute between the applicants and the opposite party regarding certain land & that it gave rise to an apprehension of a breach of peace, started proceedings ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »