Allahabad Court December 1972 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 Hamid Vs. Karim Bux and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All67
Trivedi, J.1. This plaintiffs second Civil Appeal has been referred to the Full Bench on account of the importance of a question of law involved in the case. The question involved is whether on the dismissal of a suit in default the attachment before judgment automatically lapsed and a fresh attachment was necessary on the restoration of the suit, or whether on the restoration of the suit the attachment previously made is revived or is survived.2. Smt Muradan and her husband Nasib Ullah had purchased a house on 16-1-47. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for recovery of certain sum of money against Nasib Ullah in the year 1951 and on an application made got the half share of Nasib Ullah in the house attached before judgment on 11-11-51. The suit was thereafter dismissed for default but was subsequently restored and ultimately decreed. In execution of the decree the half share of Nasib Ullah was sold and purchased by the plaintiff-appellant. The sale was confirmed on 28-10-59. The...
Dhyan Singh Vs. Indra Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All243
Satish Chandra, J.1. A learned Single Judge has, in view of a conflict between two Division Benches in Basdeo Singh v. Bharat Singh : AIR1949All542 and Bal-bodh v. Mahabir, 1970 All LJ 1145 referred this civil revision to a Full Bench.2. Indrapal Singh, defendant Opposite Party No. 1 and Janakpal Singh, father of defendant Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4, were co-sharers in a bhumidhari holding. They, by two sale deeds dated 19th September, 1956 and 26th September, 1957, transferred 2.30 acres out of this holding in favour of the plaintiff-applicant. One Lakhan Singh, a co-sharer in the holding, filed Suit No. 190 of 1958 for partition in the court of the Munsif, Etah. The transferors and the transferee (namely the plaintiff-applicant) were both impleaded as parties to the partition suit. The learned Munsif passed a decree on 11th February, 1963, declaring the share of the transferors at .49 acre. Thereupon the transferee filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/-. He claimed that...
Fida HussaIn Vs. Imamat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All246
Satish Chandra, J.1. The learned Single Judge has referred the following question to a Full Bench:'Does the amendment made in Section 331 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1961 affect or take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and decide the present suit instituted in 1953 which was pending on the date the amendment in question came into force.'2. In 1953 Fida Husain, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Allahabad, for a declaration that he was the sirdar of the plots mentioned in the plaint. The suit was contested by several sets of defendants on a variety of grounds. None of the defendants, however, pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif framed 11 issues in the case. Issue No. 11 was whether the suit as framed is not maintainable. The finding given upon this issue was:'Nothing has been argued upon this issue and I decide it in the negative.' The suit was decreed on 25-9-1963. It was de...
Banta Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All455
ORDERR.B. Misra, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It challenges the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18th July, 1970 and that of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 3rd July. 1963.2. The facts leading up to this petition lie in a narrow campass.3. The disputed plot was, admittedly, the bhumidhari land of Gurbachan Singh. On 5th September. 1961, he entered into an agreement to transfer the said plot to Sita Ram and others, respondents Nos. 4 to 10. Sardar Banta Singh, the petitioner filed a suit No. 49 of 1961 in the court of the Civil Judge and during the pendency of the suit, he obtained an order of attachment before judgment on 23rd November. 1961. A Commissioner was appointed the same day to attach the disputed plot who complied with the order the same day.4. It appears that the very next day, Gur Bachan Singh executed a sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 10 pursuant to the agreement dated 5th September. 1961. Even...
Radheylal and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All237
ORDERH. Swarup, J.1. This is a defendants' application in revision against an order passed in appeal. The suit had been instituted by one Smt. Yashoda Devi for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with her possession over the house in dispute. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died on 25-3-68. On 13-5-68 Smt. Kalawati filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 3, C.P.C. for her being brought on record as plaintiff in place of Smt. Yashoda Devi. An objection was filed by the defendant to the effect that Smt. Kalawati had re-married and was, therefore, not an heir to the plaintiff. The trial Court held that she had re-married and, therefore, was not an heir of her daughter and refused substitution. The order was passed on 9th of September, 1968. Against this order Smt. Kalawati filed an appeal. The appellate Court held that Smt. Kalawati had not been proved to have re-married and was, therefore, entitled to be substituted as an heir of Smt. Yasho...
Dhan Singh Vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All283
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. These four special appeals have been filed against a common judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in two connected writ petitions. 2. Village Karothi, Pergana Siana, district Bulandshahr was brought under consolidation operations tinder the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the basic year Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali appellants in Special Appeal No. 1071 of 1967 were recorded as bhumidhars of plot Nos. 30 and 34/1 M whereas Mushtaq Ali father of Nawazish Ali and Kallu appellants in Special Appeal No. 1070 of 1967 were recorded as bhumidhars of plots Nos. 31 and 34/1 M. Dhan Singh appellant in Special Appeals Nos. 1056 and 1058 of 1967 filed objections claiming to be a grove-holder of the plots in dispute and in the alternative to have become sirdar by virtue of his long continuous possession. This was, however, not the first litigation between the parties. Jamshed Ali and Mukrram Ali had filed a suit on June 28, 1949 for the ejectment of Dhan Singh from plo...
The State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All337
N.D. Ojha, J.1. The respondent Rajen-dra Singh was a forest contractor. By a letter dated August 28, 1971, the Chief Conservator of Forest notified the decision of the 'Government that a public auction of Borang trees would take place and the auction would be confined only to such pencil manufacturers who had obtained a certificate from the Industrial Department. By another order dated September 7, 1971, the slate manufacturers were also made eligible to bid at the auction. The auction was accordingly held in respect of certain trees on September 28, 1971 and October 12, 1971. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid auction inter alia on the ground that the Government was not competent to exclude persons other than falling within the purview of the aforesaid letter dated August 28, 1971 and the order dated September 7, 1971 from participating in the bid and that the restriction so placed was arbitrary, illegal and hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. A ...
Ram Bahadur Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All414
Satish Chandra, J.1. The respondents 3 to 5 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner contested them. The objections were fixed for hearing on 11-12-1968. On that day the hearing was adjourned to 23-12-1968. They were allowed by the Consolidation Officer by an order of that date. Subsequently, on 4-1-1969 a notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published. Thereafter, on January 15, 1969 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order of 23-12-1968. He alleged that he was all along present on that day but he was told that the case would be heard on some other date of which notice will be given to him later. Upon hearing this he went away and subsequently he learnt that the objections had been decided on that day. The restoration application was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer without giving any reasons. The petitioner then filed a revision. The Deputy Director dismissed the revision on the view...
Khalil Ahmad Vs. the Manager, Abdul Karim Khan Higher Secondary School ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All287
ORDERR.L. Gulati, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discloses an extraordinary set of circumstances. 2. The petitioner, Khalil Ahmad, was appointed an Assistant Teacher in the Abdul Karim Khan Higher Secondary School, Amroha, district Moradabad. As per the letter of the Manager of the school dated 28-10-1965, he was appointed on probation for one year with effect from November 1, 1965. His services were terminated some time in 1966. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of dismissal. This petition was allowed by Dwivedi, J. on May 17, 1967 and the order terminating the services of the petitioner was quashed. The only plea pressed on behalf of the Management of the School in that petition was that the petitioner was a temporary employee and, therefore, the management could terminate his services at will. It was held by Dwivedi, J. that Section 16-G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act was applicable to temporary ...
Ramnath Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All290
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J. 1. This defendants' revision has been filed by Ram Nath Singh and others under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners on the allegation that the parties belonged to the same family and that the plot Nos. 423, 424 and 425 in dispute formed their joint tenancy in which the-plaintiffs-respondents asserted half share. These plots were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and a compensation of Rs. 37.60 P. was awarded to and received by the defendants. According to the respondents-plaintiffs they were entitled to half of this compensation from the defendants-petitioners and a decree for the same. It is not necessary for the present purpose to mention the point raised in defence. It is sufficient merely to say that the respondents' suit was decreed with cost. The defendants-petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Allahabad by an order dated 21-8-69 upholding the trial court's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »