Allahabad Court March 1959 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.
Bhawani Prasad Vs. Smt. Surendra Bala W/O Subodh Chandra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All126
Gurtu, J. 1. This is a first appeal which arises out of a petition for the grant of letters of administration to the applicants, namely, Surendra Bala and Suresh Chandra who are respondents in this appeal, or for probate. The petitioners stated in their petition that Pandit Kuar Lal and his wife Smt. Ram Pyari duly executed a will dated the 15th of November, 1941, in respect of property owned by them. This will was duly registered on the 17th of November, 1941. Pandit Kuar Lal, who was the husband of Ram Pyari, died on the 18th of January, 1942 at Firozabad, and Smt. Ram Pyari died on the 11th of December, 1945, at Agra. The petitioners claimed to be legatees under the said will and entitled to obtain letters of administration. 2. We may note that in the first instance the petitioners merely prayed for the grant of a pro-bate, but ultimately by an amendment an alternative prayer for the grant of letters of administration to the petitioners was made. Notices were issued and a caveat was...
District Board, Allahabad Vs. S. Tahir HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All572
Mootham, C.J.1. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution came on for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 27-1-1959. A preliminary objection was then taken on behalf of the respondents that the application, so far as it was for a certificate under Article 133, was defective and could not be entertained by the Court as the applicant had failed to state in his prayer the specific clause or clauses of Article 133(1) under which he asked for a certificate; and reliance was placed unpn the unre-ported decision of Desai and Beg, JJ., in Azimun-nissa v. Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Properties, Dcoria, Supreme Court Appeal No. 68 of 1957, decided on 15-11-1957. The Bench was of opinion that the preliminary objection raised a question of practical importance which it was desirable should be considered by a larger Bench.2. The application was for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of this Court dated 4-12-1957, dism...
Hukum Chand JaIn Vs. the Municipal Board, Faizabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All686
ORDERM.C. Desai, J.1. The petitioner in this case and in the connected case is an ex-overseer of the Municipal Board, Faizabad, opposite party No. 1, the President of which is Mahabir Prasad, opposite party No. 2. On 9-9-1958 the President passed an order to the effect that the petitioner had been guilty of misconduct, persistent failure in the discharge of his duties, gross negligence, flagrant disobedience, etc., that a thorough inquiry was absolutely necessary before disciplinary proceedings could be taken against him, that his continuance in office was bound to interfere with a free and impartial inquiry and that consequently he directed 'the suspension of Shri H. C. Jain... ....with immediate effect pending inquiry after which a charge sheet shall be served on him.'The President passed on the same day another order directing the additional municipal overseer and the public works clerk to take over complete charge from the petitioner, and a third order, addressed to the petitioner,...
Qadir Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All799; 1959CriLJ1397
ORDERM.C. Desai, J. 1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 13, Gambling Act. A person is guilty under Section 13, Gambling Act if he is found gaming in a public place. The shop of Babu in which the applicant is said to have been found gaming may be taken to be a public place, but the question is whether there is any evidence to prove that the applicant was found gaming. Gaming, means wagering or betting. The conviction rests on the evidence of two eye-witnesses H. C. Raghubar Singh and Sohan Pal. What they stated is simply this that they saw satta gambling being indulged in by the applicant with Babu, that Babu wrote something on a slip of paper at the dictation of the applicant and that three slips of paper were recovered from the possession of Babu. The slips contain nothing but figures; some figures are mere numbers and others are of amounts of money; no name is written anywhere. The writing on them makes no sense or conveys no idea and, therefore, by itself can prove not...
Durga Prasad Khosla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1959
Reported in: AIR1960All728; 1959CriLJ1374
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Article 134 of the Constitution praying that the case be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. It is not necessary to give the facts in great detail. It will be sufficient to mention that a complaint was filed against the applicant charging him with several offences including one under Section 193 I. P. C. Against the order filing the complaint the applicant went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge under Section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge took the view that the order appealed against was wrong because Section 476 Cr. P. C., under which the complaint had been ordered to be filed had been impliedly overruled by Section 479-A of the amended Criminal Procedure Code.He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the complaint so far as the offence under Section 193 I. P. C., was concerned. Against that order an application in revision was filed in this Court and the question whether Secti...
Durga Prasad Khosla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1959
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1534
ORDERA.P. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Article 134 of the Constitution praying that the case be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. It is not necessary to give the facts In great detail. It will be sufficient to mention that a complaint was filed against the applicant charging him with several offences including one Under Section 193 IPC Against the order filing tie complaint the applicant went up in appeal to the Ses sions Judge Under Section 476 B of the Criminal ; Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge took the view that the order appealed against was wrong because Section 476 Cr.PC, under which the complaint had 'been ordered to be filed had been impliedly overruled by Section 479 A of the amended Criminal Procedure Code.He therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the complaint so far as the offence Under Section 193 I, P. C, was concerned. Against that order an application in revision was filed in this Court and the question whether Section 479...
Sharafat Ullah Khan Vs. Raja Udairaj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All416
J.K. Tandon, J.1. These are three appeals in which a common question of law as to the effect of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1954, arises. Appeals Nos. 168 of 51 and 821 of 53 have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as an important question of law, about which there was some conflict also was raised. In Special Appeal No. 1 of 56 also the same question is involved. All the three appeals have accordingly been heard together. In order to appreciate the points in controversy the following short history of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 may be necessary. This Act was first enacted in 1947 and was by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 thereof given effect to on and from the 1st day of October, 1946. Section 3 of the Act placed restriction on the right of a landlord to file a suit for eviction of a tenant from any accommodation in these terms:'No suit shall, without the permission of the Dist...
Bhagwat Singh and ors. Vs. State Through Udai Bhan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1959All763; 1959CriLJ1384
M.C. Desai, J.1. In the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued an order as contemplated by Sub-section (1) requiring the parties to appear before him on a certain date 'to file their written statements regarding their claims of possession'; he did not pass a proper order and did not require them 'to put in such documents, or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons as they rely upon in support of such claims.' The parties appeared before him and the opposite-party did not file any affidavit but sot summonses issued against, and examined, four witnesses. The applicant filed some affidavits and also examined some witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate then held the opposite-party to be in possession and entitled to remain in possession.2. It was contended before me that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted illegally in acting upon the evidence of witnesses examined by the opposite party when they had not filed any affidavi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›