Allahabad Court December 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.
Chaturbhuj Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1967All31; 1967CriLJ13
Satish Chandra, J.1. This revision along with its companion revisions have been heard together as they raise some common questions.2. The petitioners in these revisions have been convicted under Section 10 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The main question raised in these petitions is that the officer who signed the complaint was not competent to do so and as such the prosecution based on such a complaint was not maintainable.3. To appreciate the contention raised, it will be feasible to state few relevant facts. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 makes a specific provision with respect to cognizance and trial of the offences under that Act. The relevant and material provisions of Section 20 of this Act are that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government on the local authorit...
Smt. Parbati Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1967All40
K.B. Asthana, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff Smt. Parbati is the owner of certain shop in which Babu Lal, defendant respondent, is a tenant on payment of rent of Rs 17/- per month The undisputed facts are that the defendant respondent, Babu Lal, executed a Kiryanama dated 1-8-48 in favour of one Pragi Lal who was the husband of Smt. Parbati appellant in respect of the shop in suit. The defendant respondent paid rent regularly to Pragi Lal. After the death of Pragi Lal a dispute arose between his widow Smt. Parbati plaintiff appellant and one Lalman who was the real brother of deceased Pragi Lal. Lalman claimed that the shop in suit was joint family property consisting of him and his deceased brother and he had half share in it.A suit No. 148 of 1956 was filed by Smt. Parbati against Babu Lal and Lalman in which she claimed the whole of the rent of the shop from Babu Lal. Lalman filed another suit No. 679 of 1956 against Babu Lal and Smt. Parbati claiming half of the r...
Mst. Kiran Devi Vs. Abdul Wahid and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All105
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Smt. Kiran Devi alias Sona against the order, dated 10-3-1962 of the District Judge of Aligarh dismissing her application under Order IX, Rule 13, C. P. C. read with Section 141, C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte order passed in the proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act started on the application of Abdul Wahid, opposite party No. 1. It is not clear why his brother Jia Uddin, opposite party No. 2, was impleaded in the revision. It may be that he was assisting his brother, Abdul Wahib.2. The present application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was made on 2-2-1960 with the allegations that the two minor daughters of Smt. Kiran Devi were born through the applicant, Abdul Wahid, and he being the father was their lawful guardian and was entitled to their custody. It was prayed that the Court be pleased to make an order for their return and for the purpose of enforcing the orde...
Ram Pratap and ors. Vs. NaraIn Singh Chaudhary
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All172
D.P. Uniyal, J. 1. This appeal by the defendants arises under the following circumstances. 2. The parties are owners of adjacent houses in the town of Dugadda. The appellants' house was a doublestoried one. In 1946 the respondent started constructing a second storey in his house. This was objected to by the appellants on the ground that the constructions of the respondent were likely to interfere with their right of easement of light and air. The respondent, however, continued with his constructions. When the walls of the second storey of the respondent's house had been raised to a certain height the appellants instituted a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding with the constructions. Bending the hearing of the suit they applied for and obtained an interlocutory order or injunction on 26-2-47. The order of injunction remained in force from 26-2-1947 to 15-7-1948 when it was vacated by the order of the lower appellate Court. The appellants suit was dismissed by ...
Smt. Nannho Bibi Vs. Ram Swarup Rastogi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965All533
R.N. Sharma, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and the decree of learned District Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal of Smt. Nannho Bibi against the judgment and the decree of the learned Munsif, North, Lucknow, decreeing the suit of respondent No. 1, Ram Swamp Rustogi against her for recovery of Rs. 2000/- with costs. When this appeal came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, he referred it to a Bench because apparently he found some conflict between the authority of the decision in Kalika Prasad v. Sarju Prasad AIR 1942 All 90 (2) and the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. Thus this appeal was heard by this Bench. 2. Smt. Nannho Bibi appellant before us was the owner of a house. According to the concurrent finding of the two Courts below she authorised respondent No. 2 Emron and Sons, auctioneers, to sell her house by public auction or by private negotiations. After advertisement respondent No 2 held auction of the house on 11-10-1955. Th...
Smt. Ganga Dei and ors. Vs. Smt. Munia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All107
ORDERD.S. Mathur, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Smt. Ganga Dei and others to challenge the order, dated 18-9-62 of the District Judge of Banda passed in an appeal and thereby directing that one succession certificate shall be granted to Smt. Sia Dulari and Girish Chandra, applicants Nos. 6 and 7, in respect of 13/14 share of the cash left by Girdhari Lal, deceased, in the Kanpur Head Post Office and another succession certificate to Smt. Munia, opposite party, in respect of the remaining 1/14 share on payment of the necessary court-fee.2. The order is challenged on the ground that under the law only one succession certificate could be granted. It, however, appears to me that the applicants moved this revision to somehow deprive Smt. Munia of her rights which, it may be mentioned, have been upheld by the lower Courts though that decision can be challenged in a regular suit. Even though the applicants do not appear to have been acting with a good intention, the C...
Har Prasad Vs. Hans Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All124; 1966CriLJ244
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. On the 3rd of April, 1961 applicant filed a complaint before a Magistrate First Class at Meerut on the allegations that he was the Bhumidhar of plots Nos. 836, 837 and 821 of village Shafiabad, that in pursuance of a conspiracy amongst themselves, the opposite parties with a view to cause loss to the applicant got a fictitious sale-deed in respect of the aforesaid plots executed and registered in favour of opposite party No. 1 on 9th January 1901 for alleged consideration of Rs. 2000/-and on the basis of that forged deed opposite party No. 2 moved an application for mutation of plots before the Tahsildar Hapur and thereby they had all committed offences under Sections 467 and 471 I. P. C.2. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that as the allegations made in the complaint indicated that the alleged offences were committed in relation to a proceeding before the court of the Tahsildar, the complaint was barred by Section 195 of the Code or Criminal Procedure. ...
Ravendra Kaur Vs. Achant Swarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All133; 1966CriLJ247
ORDERH.C.P. Tripathi, J.1. Applicant Rabindra Kaur made an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar at Muzaffarnagar praying that the maintenance allowance of Rs. 25 per month granted in her favour on the 2nd of March 1955 be increased to Rs. 100 as the circumstances of the respondent had changed during the period. Respondent Achint Swarup filed a written statement before the Magistrate alleging that the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar had granted him a decree for judicial separation from the applicant and, therefore, the maintenance allowance which had been grunted to the applicant earlier was not payable. He also filed a copy of the decree passed by the Court showing that he was allowed judicial separation from the applicant. On these facts the learned Magistrate rejected the application of Rabindra Kaur for enhancing her maintenance allowance and also passed an order cancelling his previous order of the 2nd of March 1955 granting her a maintenance allowance...
Municipal Board Vs. District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966All37
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a short but interesting question as to the interpretation of Section 140 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 2. One Lala Jagdish Prasad, the second respondent, owns a building which consists of twenty one godowns. The godowns are employed for the storage of goods and for this purpose have been let out to different parties. For the purpose of determining the 'animal value' of the building under the U. P. Municipalities Act, the Tax Superintendent of Municipal Board, Muzaffarnagar, made enquiries and submitted his report to the Executive Officer. On April 4, 1962, the Tax Committee of the Municipal Board determined the 'annual value' of the building for the years 1958-59 to 1962-63 at Rs. 8,240 on the method of computation set out in Section 140 (1) (b) of the Act, holding it to be a building other than that falling within the provisions of Section 140 (1) (a). On this basis, house tax was fixed at Rs. 2,008....
Prem Prakash Agarwal Vs. Ram Pratap
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1967All47
D.S. Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal by Prem Prakash Agarwal, defendant against the order dated 1-8-1961 of the District Judge of Kumaun. dismissing his application under Order 41, Rule 19, C. P C. for restoration of the appeal which had earlier been dismissed on merits though according to him (appellant), for default under Order 41, Rule 11, C. P. C. The District Judge has not worded his order properly but what he apparently meant was that the appeal had been dismissed on merits under Order 41, Rule 11 (1), C. P. C., and consequently no application under Order 41, Rule 19, C. P. C., for restoration of the appeal was maintainable, and the only remedy available to the party was to challenge the decree passed in the appeal by way of Second Appeal.2. The material facts of the case are that the suit instituted by Ram Pratap, respondent, was decreed ex parte when the defendant didnot put in appearance on the date fixed for hearing. Prem Prakash Agarwal applied for restoration of the suit aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »