Allahabad Court July 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.
Mangal Singh Vs. Harkesh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All42
Srivastava, J.1. The plaintiffs -- Harkesh Singh and Mukhtar Singh are the two sons of Risal Singh. Risal Singh had a sister, and Mangal Singh, the present defendant-appellant, is the son of that sister. On the 10th of September 1930, Risal Singh executed a deed of gift in respect of the properties in dispute in favour of his sister's son, defendant-appellant Mangal Singh. The plaintiffs sued to avoid this deed of gift on the ground that they formed a joint Hindu family with their father, Risal Singh, and alleged that as the gifted property was their joint family property, Risal Singh had no right to give it away to the defendant.They, therefore, claimed a declaration that the deed of gift was null and void and claimed possession over the properties. Along with the donee Mangal Singh, Risal Singh was also joined in the suit as proforma defendant. Only Mangal Singh contested the suit. He did not dispute the fact that Risal Singh and the plaintiffs formed a joint Hindu family but tried t...
Jokhu Vs. Bhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1959All93
M.C. Desai, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from a decree of the Courts below cancelling the decrees passed under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act by a revenue Court in suits Nos. 375 and 376 of 1945, on the ground that the said decree had been passed on the basis of statements made by a party under Section 10 of the Oaths Act after accepting an offer made by the guardian of minors who had not obtained the leave of the Court under Order 32, Rule 7, C.P.C.2. The previous suits under Section 59 of the U. p. Tenancy Act had been instituted by Bhaiya Lal, Misri Lal and Desraj minors (contesting respondents before us) through their uncle and guardian Ram Narain against Jokhu appellant (and three others, who are pro forma respondents before us) for a declaration that they were tenants. It seems that there were two holdings and consequently there were two suits. The title of the contesting respondents depended upon their mother Smt. Chhitra being a daughter of one Anandi, the appellant w...
Sita Ram Khemaka Vs. K.K. Banerji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All137
V. Bhargava, J. 1. The petitioner Sri Sita Ram Khemka has prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining opposite patty No. 1, Sri K. K. Banerji, constituting the Election Tribunal at Allahabad, from exercising his jurisdiction and from proceeding with the decision of the election petition presented by the petitioner. By the election petition, the petitioner challenged the election of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Jawahar Lal Nehru and Sri Nasuriadin.The election petition has been entrusted by the Election Commission for decision to opposite party No. 1, appointing him as Election Tribunal for the trial of the petition of the petitioner. A copy of the notification by which the opposite party No. 1 was appointed has been filed today before us with a supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner in order to elucidate a point taken on his behalf to challenge the proceedings before opposite party No. 1.2. The first two ...
S. Barrow Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All154
M.L. Chaturvedi, J.1. The above two are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. They raise common questions of law and may conveniently be disposed of together.2. The petitioner in both the cases is the same. He owned certain lands in villages Bhilawan and barha in the District ot Luck-now. The Collector of the District decided to requisition ami then to acquire portions of his land in the two villages. The Collector of Lucknow accordingly issued notices under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, U. P. Act No. 26 of 1948.This Act will hereafter be referred to as the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides that if, in the opinion of the State Government or such other authority as the State Government may appoint in that behalf, it is necessary or expendient to requisition the land for purposes of erection of houses, shops or workshops for the renabitration of the refugees, the State Government or the appointed authority, as the case may ...
Radhey Shyam Tondon Vs. Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, Luck ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All115; [1958]9STC534(All)
ORDERMehrotra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the orders of the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax dated 21st of February 1955 passed on an application made by the petitioner in the Sales Tax Appeal of M/s Virendra Kumar Ravindra Kumar Khandsari, Shahjahanpur, and one revision against the order of Sri B. R. Verma the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, dated 25th ofAugust, 1955 in Radhey Shayam Tondon, Shahjahanpur v. The Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, Lucknow, dated 5th of November, 1955; and further a writ of mandamuscommanding the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, and the Judge (Revisions) U. P., Lucknow, to permit the petitioner to appear and plead in appeals and revisions pending before them in which the petitioner has filed a special power of attorney executedby the dealers in his favour authorising him to act and plead in these cases.2. The facts set out by the pet...
Bharat and anr. Vs. Ch. Khazan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All332
M.C. Desai, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decree for possession of a plot of land passed against them by the courts below. The suit was instituted against the appellants by the respondent on the following allegations:'I am the owner and zamindar of plot np--424/1, situated in khewat khata No. 1 of village Akbarpur Sagar. It was lying vacant. On a portion of it the defendants in my absence and without my consent and without any right or title constructed a house a year ago and have brought the remaining area of the plot into their use.'It was contested on various grounds with which we are not concerned now. It was decreed by the trial court in 1947 and the appellants were allowed to remove the building within a certain time. The decree was affirmed on appeal in 1948. After the institution of the second appeal, the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has come into force and the appellants contend that on account of the provisions of Sections 6 and 9 the respondent...
Lalji Tandon Vs. Sripat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All105
Raghubar Dayal, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a special appeal against an order of a learned single Judge passed on an application in connection with a Civil Revision.2. The facts leading to this appeal are that a revision was filed in this Court against an order of a Small Cause Court. During the pendency of the revision an order of injunction was issued by this Court at the instance of the plaintiff, the present appellant, against the defendant, the present respondent, restraining him from disposing of his immovable assets. The ex parte injuncton order was vacated on the objection ot the defendant, the present respondent.The defendant-respondent, then filed an application under Section 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of compensation from the plaintiff-appellant on whose application the injunction order had been issued and who had Suppressed certain important facts which it known would not have led to the issue of the injunction order. This application was allowed by the learned ...
Durga Prasad Vs. Mst. Ganga Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All387
R.N. Gurtu, J.1. This is a execution second appeal. The appellant is the decree-holder. A final mortgage decree was passed in favour of the decree-holder on the 13th August 1938. One of the Judgment-debtors under the decree was Srimati Kalawati. On the 12th September 1938 an execution application was made. On account of Act X of 1937 the execution was stayed, It was, however, revived. The mortgaged property was sold and purchased by the decree-holder at auction. An objection under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the judgment-debtors which was dismissed on the 2nd August 1941 whereafter the sale was confirmed on 11th of August 1941 and the execution case was struck off in part satisfaction. Subsequently on 18th of September 1944 a sale certificate was granted to the decree-holder purchaser. Thereafter on the 30th of November 1944 the decree-holder acution-purchaser applied for possession over the property purchased by him at auction sale. 2. Srimati Ganga Dei a...
Pahlad Das Vs. Ganga Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All774
A.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is a defendant's special appeal that arises cut of an ejectment suit. The plaintiff sued for the ejectment of the defendant from a shop and also claimed arrears of rent. Before filing the suit he had obtained permission of the District Magistrate as required by Section 3 of the U. P. Rent Control & Eviction Act. The first suit which he filed in pursuance of the permission, however, failed on the ground that the notice of ejectment was defective.Then he gave another notice of ejectment and filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. The suit Was contested mainly on two grounds. The first was that the first suit having failed the permission obtained from the District Magistrate had exhausted itself, and the second suit could not be maintainable without a fresh permission. The second ground taken was that the notice of ejectment was invalid as the period fixed in the notice to vacate the premises was not a period expiring with the end of the month...
Mt. Pitra Kueri Vs. Ujagir Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All101
Srivastava, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's special appeal. It is unnecessary to give the facts in detail because only a single point has been argued before us. It would be sufficient if we state that the property in dispute originally belonged to one Amrit Rai, who died in 1923. On his death his Step-mother Smt. Balli Kuar took possession of his property. Certain collaterals of Amrit Rai then filed a suit to recover possession over the property from Smt. Balli Kuar. The suit ended in a compromise.Smt. Balli Kuar was allowed to retain a portion of the property belonging to Amrit Rat but the rest of the property was given to the collaterals. The property which is now in dispute appears to be the portion of the property which was by that compromise given to the collaterals. Smt. Balli Kuar died in 1935. Smt. Pabitra Kuar alias Pitra Kuar, the present appellant then filed a suit against the collaterals to recover possession of the property in suit.This suit was filed on the 4th of November 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »