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.
Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All109
Raghubar Dayal, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by Abdul Aziz against the rejection of his writ petition praying the issue of a writ of mandums or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate of Etawah, opposite party No. 2, not to, in any manner, interfere with the applicant's functioning as Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Jaswantnagar, on the basis of the resolution passed on the 2nd August 1956. This resolution was a non-confidence resolution passed by the Town Area Committee against the appellant who was the Chairman of that Committee.2. The U. P. Town Areas Act, 1914, does not contain any provision for the passing of such a resolution by the Committee, and for the consequences which are to follow if such a resolution is passed. The Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification, in the exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Section 38 of the U. P. Town Areas Act, extending the provisions of Sections 87-A and 47-A of the U. P. Mun...
Lalta Singh Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All708
Roy, J. 1. This appeal has been referred by a learned Judge of this Court to a Bench for decision on account of certain conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the question as the what is and what is not 'step in aid of execution of a decree' within the meaning of Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act under given circumstances. 2. The facts are these. In a suit for partition of joint family properties a compromise decree was passed on the 5th of December, 1935, which was partly preliminary and partly final. It was preliminary in respect of certain immovable properties in which shares were defined and they were to be divided by metes and bounds later on. It was final with respect to two sums of money, namely, (1) Rs. 90 which was payable immediately, and (2) Rs. 600/- which was payable by the end of Baisakh 1343 Fasli, equivalent to May 1936. There were some objections regarding the decree and the matter went up in appeal. After the decision of the appeal a preliminary decree ...
L. Nem Kumar Agarwal Vs. Nem Kumar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All207
ORDERMukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision which has been argued with great care and thoroughness by Mr. Gopi Nath, on the one hand, and by Mr. Hari Sarup, on the other. The question that has been raised is one of some difficulty as also of considerable importance.2. An application was made in an appeal for staying that appeal because the matter in issue in that appeal was a matter directly and sub-stantially in issue in an earlier instituted appeal.3. What the real test for applying Section 10 is has been differently laid down by different High Courts. Two decisions of this Court were cited before me, one reported in Hati Ram v. Hazi Mo-hammad, : AIR1954All141 , and another reported in Bhola Prasad v. Jagpata : AIR1955All384 . Neither of these two cases really touches the point before me. Mr. Gopi Nath argued that the real test to be applied was one of res judicata, that is, if the earlier suit or appeal was going to operate as res judicata in respect of the second suit or ...
Jamuna Pandey Vs. Bansdeo Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All739
J.N. Takru, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the first respondent for the cancellation of a sale-deed, dated 22nd October, 1946, executed by Srimati Surja defendant No. 2, in favour of Jamuna defendant No. 1, in respect of a house and for possession over the same.2. In order to appreciate the facts of this case a short pedigree of the parties would be found very helpful. One Sahsa Pandcy died leaving two sons, Gopal and Bhagirathi. Gooal had two sons, Ori Pandey and Swarup. Ori Pandey had no issue while Swarup had a son, Adhin, who was married to Srimati Smja, defendant No. 2 to this suit. Ori and Swarup and his son Adhin constituted a joint Hindu family and the house in suit belonged to the said joint Hindu family.Swarup died first and then Adhin died on 15th of July, 1927, leaving his widow Smt. Surja. On the death of Adhin, Ori became the sole survivingcoparcener of the joint Hindu family, Smt. Surja however continued to live in the house in questjo...
Firm Thakur Das Marakhan Lal Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All66
Srivastava, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts which have led up to it are to a certain extent not disputed. The plaintiff Mathura Prasad pawned three ornaments in Kartika Sambat 1885. He pawned them through his agent, the defendant No. 2, to one Manni Ram for Rs. 1,000. The loan carried interest at Rs. 0-14-0 per cent, per mensem. Manni Ram in his own turn Sub-pledged the ornaments to the defendant No. 3. Subsequently, two of the three ornaments so Sub-pledged were redeemed and were again Sub-pledged with the defendant No. 4. The plaintiff paid two items of Rs. 800 and Rs. 500 to the original pawnee, Manni Ram. As a portion of the debt remained unpaid he did not get back the ornaments. Then the Debt Redemption Act came into force and under it the amount of the loan got reduced because the plaintiff was an agriculturist. The debt got reduced to such an extent that the payment already made by the plaintiff satisfied it. The plaintiff, therefore, sued to recover possession of ...
Kundan Lal Vs. Sri NaraIn Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All96
Desai, J.1. The applicant, who was the defendant in the Court below, challenged through this revision application an order of the Court below allowing the opposite party, plaintiff to amend his plaint. The suit was for possession over a house. It seems that the applicant took possession of the house and after demolishing it constructed a new house in its place; but this fact was not mentioned in the plaint and the relief claimed was just for possession of the opposite party's house. The opposite party applied for amendment of the plaint in order to make it clear that he sought possession over his old house and not over the new house constructed on it's site by the applicant. The application for amendment was opposed by the applicant, who pleaded that the value of the house constructed by him was more than Rs. 5000/-, that consequently the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the lower Court and that it had no jurisdiction to pass any order including one allowing the amendment. The l...
Roshan Lal Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957All765; 1957CriLJ1206
ORDERV.D. Bhargava, J. 1. These are two connected revisions filed by two persons who had stood surety for one Lalta who had been convicted and sentenced Under Section 379 I. P. C. by a Magistrate of the 1st Class. He was convicted oh the 31-5-1955 and on the same day an appeal was filed in the Court of Session. An application was then moved for bail. On the 1-6-1955 the learned Sessions Judge passed an order that the accused be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- and two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned. These two applicants filed surety bonds and on the execution of those bonds the accused was released on bail. After that Lalta appeared on the 19-7-1955 before the appellate court but thereafter he never appeared before the court of Session. According to the judgment of the Sessions Judge the notices were given to the sureties to produce Lalta and they took time to produce him but they failed.U...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›