Allahabad Court November 1964 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.
S. Dharam Singh Vs. Khan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All137
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by S. Dharam Singh, defendant, against the order dated 11-9-1962 of the District Judge of Saharunpur, allowing the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Cause Court, and decreeing the suit of Khan Chand, plaintiff, in full. 2. The material facts of the case are that on 4-11-1957 the defendant-applicant borrowed a sum of Rs. 400/- from the plaintiff-opposite party, and on 30-9-1958 he (defendant) issued a cheque for the above amount in payment of the loan. The cheque was dishonoured under the note dated 28-11-1958 of the United Commercial Bank Ltd., Delhi. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 27-9-1961 basing his claim on the loan though pleading that he was entitled to the benefit or Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), in view of the fact that payment had been made by ...
Rajendra Kumar Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All42; 1966CriLJ4
M.H. Beg, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 471 and 473 read with Sections 466 and 474, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 for each of the two offences. He has also been convicted under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and sentenced to six months' R. I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It was alleged that the appellant was caught travelling in a truck in which he was trying to carry some contraband tobacco without the required permit, on 9th of June, 1960, at about 11.80 p.m. Information had been received by Sri C. P. Anand (P. W. 1), Superintendent, Central Excise, Kannanj, who was camping at Gursahaiganj, that a truck loaded with tobacco, on which no duty had been paid, was to be found in Chhibramau Tahsil, in district Farrukhabad, coining from Purabhoj on the Grand Trunk Road. Consequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise arranged two parties, one headed by Sri R.D. Kapil and another by S...
Syed Mohammad Vs. Mohd. Jagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All589
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a second appeal by a judgment-debtor in an execution matter. It appears that the plaintiff decree-holder applied for execution of his decree and in execution sought attachment of certain properties of the judgment, debtor. An Amin was appointed for carrying out the attachment, but his attempts failed and he returned the papers to the execution Court. Then the decree-holder was called upon to take further steps and he applied for attachment a second time but failed to deposit the process-fee for the Amin despite repeated orders of the execution Court. The Court finally passed the following order on 21-4.1961 :'Consign for default. Costs on D. H.'Against this order of the execution Court the decree-holder filed an appeal purporting to be under Section 47, Civil P. C. The learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, allowed the appeal of the decree-holder and set aside the order of the execution Court. The learned Judge further passed an order that the executi...
Tihli Ahir and anr. Vs. Jagdish Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All570
J. Sahai, J. 1. On leave being granted, this specialappeal has been Bled by Thihli and Ram Dhan Ahirs against the judgment of Balram Upadhya J. dated 22-1-1960. It will contribute to a clear understanding of the question raised before us if the following Facts are given: 2. Jagdish Chaube, son of Jamuna Chaube, respondent No. 1 to this appeal. Bled the suit giving rise to this appeal on the allegation that plot No. 125 measuring 1.93 acres, situate in village Basharakpur in the district of Azamgarh, appertains to Khewat Khata No. 3 of which he and the defendants 2nd set are co-sharers and proprietors. The defendants 2nd set are Aditya Prasad, Brij Behari Prasad, Damodar Prasad. Baleshwar Prasad, Vishwanath Prasad and Munshi Jugul Kishore, and the defendants 1st set are Thihli Ahir, Ram Dhan Ahir, Ram Dhari Ahir. Smt. Sonwarsa Kuar, Kanta Ahir and Ram Chander Ahir. According to the allegations of Jagdish Chaube, the defendants 1st set attempted to disturb his as also that of the defenda...
Gir Raj Vs. Sulla and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All597; 1965CriLJ705
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. This application in revision arises in the following circumstances :2. Sessions trial No. 85 of 1961 was held in the Court of the Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura in which the opposite party Sulla was one of the accused under the various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial related to the alleged kidnapping of the applicant Gir Raj from his Nohra in village Bathain. In this case Git Raj was examined as a witness and he made certain statements which are the subject matter of a complaint against him filed by the opposite party under Section 500, I. P. C. The Sessions Trial ended in the acquittal of the opposite party.3. In the proceedings started on the complaint of the opposite party, an application was made before the Magistrate for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the trial was barred by Section 195, Criminal P. C. and by the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected that application an...
irfan Ahmad Vs. Abdul Wahid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All166
Gangeshwar prasad, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over certain plots of agricultural land. The suit was filed on 16th October 1951 in the civil court Prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration under Section 59/61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 in the revenue court in respect of the plots but that suit was stayed as a result of some general executive order of the Government and the present suit was then filed in the civil court. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he was A hereditary tenant of all the seven plots in dispute. The claim was made on two grounds: firstly, that the plots had been settled with the plaintiff by Smt. Khurshed Laqa, the khudkasht holder of the plots; and secondly, that the plaintiff acquired hereditary rights in the plots under Section 180 (2) of the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939. Admittedly, the plot...
Kedar Nath Vs. Purushottam Das Banarsi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All188
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J. 1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Keclar Nath, judgment-debtor, against the order, dated 7-7-1962 of the Civil Judge of Oral dismissing his objection (hereinafter to be referred to as 'application') under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P C. on the ground that the compliance of the proviso had not been made within the period of limitation.2. An order or decree can be challenged in a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. only if no appeal lies to the High Court. As a rule of practice the High Court refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction where the order or decree is appealable leaving it open to the party to challenge it in appeal. The valuation of the suit in which the decree was passed has not clearly come on the record. An application of the judgment-debtor can suggest that the valuation is less than Rs. 8,333 while another application of the decree-holder would suggest that the valuation was above Rs. 5,000, The number ofthe suit is 67 of 1948. ...
Reeta Rani Singh Vs. Raghuraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All380
B. Dayal, J. 1. We have to answer a question referred to us by a learned single Judge. The question referred to is as follows:-- Whether this Court has jurisdiction in the exercise of its powers under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to appoint a guardian of minor and to pass orders with regard to the custody of such a minor'Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court is as follows:--'And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Allahabad shall have the like power and authority with respect to the persons and estates of infants, idiots and lunatics within the said territories as that which is exercised in the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal but subject to the provisions of any laws or regulations now in force''.Apparently the power has been conferred upon this Court by Clause 12 aforementioned. On behalf of the opposite party the contention is that this power upon the court is a dead lett...
Municipal Board Vs. Bir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All527
Oak, J.1. The question for consideration in these two connected appeals is whether the Municipal Board of Meerut is entitled to retain the price of certain manure, that was stored in the year 1947 on a piece of land at Meerut. In both the appeals the Municipal Board is the appellant; and Bir Singh and three others are the respondents.2. One Amjad was the owner of the plot, on which the manure in question had been deposited. Bir Singh and other respondents are Amjad's succes-sors-in-interest. For many years the Municipal Board of Meerut (hereafter referred to as the Board) occupied the plot as Amjad's lessee or licensee. The Board used to deposit night-soil on this plot, the night-soil got converted into manure. In 1946 respondents filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Meerut for Board's ejectment from the plot. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut. The decree for possession was put into execution by the respondents in ...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ204
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Ram Prasad, Nathoo Lai and Badri were convicted by a Magistrate First Class under Section 380 I. P. C-and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20/- as fine each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Their convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Pilibhit. Hence they all came up in revision to this Court. The revision of Ram Prasad and Nathoo Lal was, however, dismissed summarily and their case is, therefore, not before me.2. According to the prosecution, in the night of 17/18th October, 1961, a burglary was committed in the house of one Ram Dularey in village Bithaura Kalan in which his ornaments were stolen away. A report of the occurrence was lodged on 18-10.1961 at police station Kotwali at 2.20 in the afternoon on the basis of which a case was registered, and investiga-tion followed.3. On 19.10-1961 applicant Badri was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »