Allahabad Court December 1961 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.
Asa Ram and ors. Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All17; 1963CriLJ28
ORDERW. Broome, J.1. This revision is directed against orders passed by the S. D. M. Sadar, Muzaffarnagar, in a case under Section 145 Cr, P. C. Since the learned Magistrate was unable to decide which of the parties had been in possession of the disputed land on the relevant dale, he referred the matter to the Civil court under Section 146 Cr. P. C. and on receipt of the decision of the Munsif of Muzaffarnagar passed an order in favour of the opposite-parties in accordance with that decision or the civil court.2. The contention advanced on behalf of the applicants is that under Section 146 the dispute ought not to have been referred to the Munsif but to the revenue court, as only a revenue court had jurisdiction to decide disputes of this nature about agricultural land; and in this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in The State v. Keshva Sen, AIR 1960 Raj 279, in which it has been held that the words 'civil court' ...
Ram Kishan Vs. Gaya Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All238
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decision of the Civil Judge of Etawah modifying the decree of the trial Court which had issued an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right to discharge rain water as well as domestic water through his Parnalas on the defendants' land, and restricting it to rain water only. The defendants have filed a cross-objection that the plaintff's suit should have been dismissed altogether. The facts are these. The houses of the parties are adjacent. It is common ground that the plaintiff has two parnalas through which water flows on to the defendants' roof (the plaintiff alleged that he has been dischaging domestic water through these parnalas but this is denied by the defendants). The plaintiff alleged that he constructed one parnala in or about the year 1908 and the other in or about 1918. The house was owned by a man called Gubre who died, according to the plaintiff's own case, about 35 y...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›