Allahabad Court October 1957 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.
Someshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Widow of Lalman Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All488
B. Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendants against an order of a learned Munsif of Kheri dated the 28th of November 1950 extending the time granted to the opposite-party for making the deposit of a sum of money which represented the sale consideration in respect of a decree that was made by that court for specific performance of a contract of sale.2. This revision in the first instance came up before a learned single Judge who referred it to a Bench for decision because a question of some importance arose namely, whether the court below had the power to extend the period for making the deposit after the court had fixed the period for the deposit in the order by which it disposed of the suit for specific performance.3. On the 16th of November 1944 a decree for specific performance was made in favour of one Lalman Sah as against Kashi Prasad and one Kunj Behari. The plaintiff Lalman Sah sued to enforce a contract of sale which had been entered into between him ...
Amod Kumar Verma Vs. Hari Prasad Burman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All720
1. This is an appeal from an order of a Civil Judge, Banaras, refusing to set aside an award of arbitrators and passing a decree on its basis in Suit No. 54 of 1947. The pedigree given below shows the relationship existing among the parties to the appeal :|- Gopal Lal|- Moti Lal|- Anant Prasad ------|- Nand Lal| |- Kanhaiya Lal|--Krishna--Jagarnath || Das (Husband of |KANHAIYA LAL-- | sister of Lal || Chand) |____ Hari Prasad ____|--Vinod | |--Shri Krishna |_____Srimati X (wife of--Mathura--Gopal--Amod |--Arbind Kumar Roop Narain) Das Das Kumar--|-- Anil KumarIn 1841 the descendants of Kanhaiya Lal through his son and daughter, who naturally were members of two families started a joint money business in the name of Mathura Das Krishna Das. In the evidence this Business is referred to as "Kothi business". On 24-6-1934 the firm Mathura Das Krishna Das got itself registered as a partnership firm under the same title.Later it started two more businesses, (1) in Kalabattu and (2) in Banarsi...
Mohammad Ahmad Kidwai Vs. Chairman, Improvement Trust, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All353; (1958)IILLJ281All
B. Mukerji, J. 1. This second appeal was referred to a Full Bench by one of us because of a question of law of some importance arising in the case. One of the questions that arose for determination in the appeal was whether an employee of the Improvement Trust could claim to be a member of a Civil service or holding a civil post as contemplated by Section 240 of the erstwhile Government of India Act (26 Geo. 5). 2. In order to be able to realise the true scope of the question properly it is essential to state some of the facts giving rise to this appeal. The appeal was by the plaintiff who was an employee of the Improvement Trust, Luck-now. He occupied the permanent post of a building supervisor in the scale of Rs. 45-3-90 plus Rs. 3/- per mensem as cycle allowance. The plaintiff claimed that he had subsequently been promoted to the post of a trust inspector in the grade of Rs. 60-5-100 per mensem plus Rs. 35/- a month as conveyance allowance and Rs. 22/- a month as dearness allowance;...
Wali Mohammad and ors. Vs. Taqi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All403
Randhir Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff appellant for the recovery of possession of two plots Nos. 232 and 233, in village pure Hiraman, pergana and district Pratapgarh, on the allegations that the plaintiff was a tenant of the plots in dispute and that the defendants had taken wrongful possession of these plots in April, 1947. The suit was instituted on the 9th May, 1947. The defendants contested the suit. They admitted that the plaintiff was a tenant of the plots in dispute, but contended that they were co-tenants along with the plaintiff in possession of the plots.In the alternative they pleaded that they had obtained tenancy rights by adverse possession. The trial court decreed the claim in respect of plot No. 233 but rejected the claim for possession of plot No. 232 on the ground that the defendants had acquired tenancy rights in this plot under Section 180 (2) of the U. P Tenancy Act. The plaintiff then went up in appeal...
M.R. Melhotra and anr. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All492; 1958CriLJ834
V. Bhargava, J.1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother Mulls, J. I agree with him that Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the case of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act No. 46 of 1952, but I would like to give the reasons for my opinion in my own language. My brother, Mulla, J., has already discussedthe three relevant decisions of the Madras, the Patna and the Punjab High Courts and it does not appear to be necessary for me to comment on those cases again.2. It appears to me that, in designating the Court, which is empowered to try cases under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, as a Court of a Special Judge, the legislature clearly intended to indicate that a Special Judge will neither be a Magistrate nor a Court of Session as constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Had there been any intention that the Special Judge was to be a Magistrate or a court of session, it ...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All159; 1958CriLJ308
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Ram Prasad and others were convicted of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 352, I. P. C. Subsequent to their conviction, the Magistrate convicting them passed an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering them to restore possession to the complainant Ram Gopal. Possession was actually delivered to the complainant. On appeal, Ram Prasad and others were acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge on 19th of September, 1955. The Court observed :'In view of what I have observed above it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the possession of Ram Gopal on the plots in suit immediately before the occurrence. No case Under Sections 147, 447 and 352, I. P. C. has thus been established. The real dispute between the parties seems to be abouttheir rights in the land but they should be solved through proper Court by proper proceedings.'2. On 20th of September, 1955, Ram Prasad and others, the acquitted persons, applied to the Ass...
Ramesh Chandra Verma Vs. R.D. Verma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All532
ORDERG. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Chief Engineer, Local Self-Government, Engineering Department, dated 2-11-1955 and the order of the State Government dated 16-11-1956 refecting the appeal of the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus directing the parties to treat the petitioner in service with all the advantages which the petitioner would have been entitled to in the normal course of events with effect from the date of his appointment.2. This case has a long history and earlier facts will be referred to at its proper place. Briefly the facts, however, are that up to 12-2-1950 the petitioner was working as work-agent in the Local Self-Government Engineering Department, Uttar Pradesh, in the Kanpur Division and thereafter as an Electrical and Mechanical Overseer. The Chief Engineer Sri R. D. Verma by his order dated 17-12-1952 terminated the services of the petitioner. An appeal to...
NaraIn Ram Agarhari Vs. Chandi Prasad Dubey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All850
D.N. Roy, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for possession over certain shares in Zamindari property in two villages specified in Schedule A at the foot of the plaint. The appeal has been referred to a Bench because it involved an important question of law.The property admittedly belonged to one Kandhai as against whom there stood a money decree of Suraj Prasad, the father of plaintiff No. 1 and the grand-father of plaintiff No. 2. Suraj Prasad put that decree into execution and he got the property attached on 29-3-1928. During the subsistence of that attachment Kandhai transferred the property to Narain Ram Agarhari, the defendant, by a sale-deed dated 15-11-1928 and put him in possession over the property.The defendant has since then been admittedly in possession thereof. That private transfer or delivery of property contrary to the attachment was, in view of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, void as against all claims enforceable under the attach...
Yar Muhammad and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1959All1
A.P. Srivastava, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the question 'Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by virtue of Section 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in respect of suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for obtaining) possession over agricultural land from which the plaintiff alleged his illegal dispossession within six months of the date of the-suit'.The reference has been made by Mukherji, J. as he felt that there was a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court, the one being in the case of Ganga Din v. Gokul Prasad : AIR1950All407 and the other being an unreported decision in Jag Narain v. Bhagwati Prasad, Civil Revn. No. 1548 of 1951 (since reported in : AIR1958All48 and that it was desirable that the conflict be resolved.2. The learned counsel wanted to argue a point in connection with Section 40(2) of the Land Revenue Act also but we did not allow him to do so because only the question mentioned above has be...
Ram Lal Rajaram Vs. G.D. Mehrotra and Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All447
A.P. Srivastava, J. 1. This is a respondent's appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he quashed two orders of the Dist. Judge, Varanasi, dated the 1st of October, 1956 and directed that the respondent to the petition must give effect to two previous orders of the District Judge dated the 3rd of September 1956 and the 6th of September 1956. 2. The farts of the case so far as they are material for this appeal may be briefly stated. There was a limited company known as the Banaras Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. Banaras. In the 1st week of May 1955 it was ordered by this Court to be compulsorily wound up. The case was then transferred under Section 164 of the Indian Companies Act (Act VII of 1913) to the Dist. Judge of Banaras. He appointed three persons--Sri C.D. Parikh, Advocate, Sri Raghav Ram Varma, Advocate, and Sri B.L. Tandon, Chartered Accountant (impleaded in this appeal as respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and in the petition as respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and herei...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »