Allahabad Court May 1963 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 Rahim Vs. Ahmad Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All252
Pathak, J.1. This is a defendant's revision application arising out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage.2. The facts appearing from the order of our brother Katju who has referred this case are brieflyas follows:Umar Ali and Umar Gharri mortgaged villages Baski Uparhar and Baski Kachar on March 12, 1872 to Abdul Qadir for Rs. 800/-. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 8 to 12 are the heirs of the mortgagors. Subsequently, one Jagat Narain purchased the interest of the mortgagors in Baski Uparhar. Thereafter, the legal representatives of Jagat Narain gifted this interest to Abdul Rahman and Abdul Ghafoor on January 24, 1902.3. Abdul Rahman and Abdul Ghafoor instituted a suit (No. 472 of 1921) for redemption of the entire mortgaged property in Baski Uparhar and Baski Kachhar which had been mortgaged by Umar Ali and Umar Ghani. In this suit, the predecessors of the present plaintiffs as well as the heirs of Abdul Qadir were impleaded. Paragraph 6 of the plaint read:'That th...
Baroo Vs. Shingram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All347
S.D. Singh, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit originally filed in the Nyay Panchayat. After the suit was decreed by the Nyay Panchayat, a revision was filed before Munsif, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 89 of the U. P. Nyay Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Munsif quashed the decree passed by the Nyay Panchayat and proceeded to try the suit himself under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89. The suit was ultimately decreed. The defendants filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, and the suit dismissed. This is how the plaintiff has come in revision. 2. The contention of the applicant was that the Munsif heard the suit in exercise of his jurisdiction as a court of revision under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and consequently the decree passed by him was not appealable, and that the Civil Judge entertained and heard the appeal without jurisdiction. 3. The contention of the applicant has, however, no force. It is true that wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›