Allahabad Court July 1960 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.
Prem Chand and anr. Vs. Pandit Satya Deo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All434
J.K. Tandon, J. 1. The following short pedigree will be helpful in appreciating the dispute. BARATI LAL (Died in February 1932) _____________|______________ | | Brahma Prasad Jot Prasad (Died in July 1935) (Died in March 1936 | =Srimati Bittan Dei Bhagwati (Defendant No. 2) (Died in 1932) ___________|____________________ | | Prem Chand Gyan Chand (Plaintiff No. 1). (Plaintiff No. 2)(1a) It appeared that Barati Lal was possessed of considerable properties and was also religious minded. He erected a temple and for the up-keep of the same set apart the income of some of the properties held by him. One of these properties, had been the house for the possession of which the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was instituted. He made two wills, one in 1908 prior to the acquisition of this house, in which he directed some of his properties to be treated as wakf for the maintenance of the temple and Shivala erected by him. Later after he had acquired the house in dispute he made a...
Mohd. Sharif and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All82
Srivastava, J.1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against an order of Mr. Justice Mathur by which he vacated an interim injunction which had been issued on an application made by the appellants for the issue of a temporary injunction.2. The circumstances in which the injunction had been applied for were these. The appellants filed a suit in the court of the Munsif claiming a permanent injunction restraining the defendants of the suit from deporting them out of India. The suit was based on the ground that the appellants were Indian nationals and were entitled to remain in the country. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the order of dismissal was upheld by the lower appellate court. A second appeal was then filed by the appellants challenging the dismissal of the suit.After the second appeal had been admitted the appellants made an application, presumably under Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. praying for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from deporting them out...
B.N. Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960All754
ORDERJagdish Sahai, J. 1. The petitioner is a Dy. S. P. During his student days at Allahabad he got very friendly with a girl Kumari Kumudni who was a class fellow of the petitioner's niece. The petitioner and Kumari Kumudni were keen to marry each other. The parents of Kumari Kumudni did not agree to marrying her with the petitioner because they were Brahmins and the petitioner was a Thakur and thus belonged to two different castes. In 1940 Kumari Kumudni was, according to the petitioner, married to Sri S. K. Joshi against her will. It is alleged in the petition that Smt. Kumudni and Sri S. K. Joshi never led a happy married life and the former could not extend to the latter feelings of love and affection. Some time after Smt. Kumudni was married to Joshi, the petitioner was also married.The petitioner's case is that Smt. Kumudni told Sri Joshi on occasions more than one that she did not love him and that she loved the petitioner with the result that Sri Joshi ill-treated her. On the ...
Ram Deo Singh and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All278
Mootham, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice M. L. Chaturvedi, dated the 2nd December, 1955.2. The appellants had filed eight suits under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for the ejectment of a number of persons from various plots of land. These suits were heard together and were decreed by the trial court, but on appeal the Commissioner, by a judgment dated the 25th April, 1950, set aside the decrees and dismissed the suits. The appellants then filed eight second appeals before the Board of Revenue. Those appeals were filed in May 1950, but before they could be heard the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, came into force.The eight appeals came before a member of the Board (Sri S. S. Hasan) on the 22nd January, 1953 when a preliminary objection was taken that the respondents had acquired Adhivasi rights underSection 20(c) (ii) of the new Act and they could not therefore be ejected. Sri S. S. Hasan was of opinion that this preliminary obje...
Kays Construction Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Regional Conciliation Of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ461All
W. Broome, J.1. This is a petition by a private limited company under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash orders passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Government la the year 1959certifying certain amounts to be due from the petitioning company to various workmen under the terms of an award given by the Allahabad Industrial Tribunal (Sugar) on 31 January 1958. In addition, a writ of mandamus is prayed for to compel the authorities to release the petitioner's property from the attachment that was made in pursuance of the aforesaid certifying orders.2. The relevant portion of the industrial tribunal's award in the dispute between the parties runs as follows :As a result of my findings above. I hold that the management of Kays Construction Company (Private), Ltd. Allahabad, ale required to reinstate the old workmen given in the annexure of Kaye Construction Company, Allahabad. They will be restored in their old or equivalent jobs and given cont...
Maharaj Kumar Mahmud Hasan Khan Vs. Moti Lal Banker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961All1
Desai, J.1. I agree with my learned brother that the question should be answered in the negative. Since the question is of great importance, I shall state my reasons in my own words.2. The scheme of the Civil Procedure Code is that in one proceeding the court determines the liability of a party and the corresponding right of the other party and incorporates them in the decree and in another proceeding it executes the decree, i.e., at the instance of one party specifically enforces the liability against the other. There can be no execution or specific enforcement of a liability without a previous determination of the liability by a court and incorporated in a formal document called a decree. The Code does not contemplate the determination of a liability and its specific enforcement in one proceeding. This is one of the main differences between a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding that in the former the execution follows at once in the same proceeding whereas in the latter it is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›