Allahabad Court March 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.
Babu Khan and ors. Vs. Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All111
Omprakash Trivedi, J.1. These are connected appeals and arise out of judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow dated December 22, 1961. It is convenient to decide all these appeals by a common judgment They arise from Regular Suits Nos. 449 of 1958, 450 of 1958, 451 of 1958, 507 of 1958, 567 of 1958 and 118 of 1959. Suit No. 449 of 1958 was filed by Sardar Khan, Suit No. 450 of 1958 by Munna Khan and Suit No. 451 of 1958 by Smt. Fahiman. Those three suits were filed against the Municipal Board of Lucknow, as it then was, and Regular Suits Nos. 567 of 1958, 507 of 1958 and 118 of 1959 were filed by the Municipal Board, Lucknow against Sardar Khan, Munna Khan, Smt. Fahiman and others. After the death of Smt Fahiman Babu Khan and others, her sons were substituted in her place. Suits Nos. 449, 450 and 451 related to different plots of land. Those suits were filed against the Municipal Board with the allegation that the plots had been let out to the plaintiffs of the suits by t...
Kedar Nath Vs. Badri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All453
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:--The defendant-appellant executed an agreement dated 4-8-1960 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to sell a house, some trees, a bamboo clump and eight agricultural plots for an amount of Rs. 2000/-. Before the sale deed could be executed the village where the agricultural plots were situated came under consolidation operation. In consolidation proceedings the valuation of the plots of defendant-appellants was prepared and according to that valuation he was allotted three different chaks of the same valuation. One of the chaks which the defendant-appellant got was 2 bigha 3 biswas and 11 dhoors in area and it also included one of the plots about which the agreement for sale had been executed. The plaintiff-respondent then filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.2. The defendant contested the suit and, inter alia, pleaded that the contract for sale regarding the agricultural plots was not capable ...
J.K. Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC264(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has made this H reference under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, at the instance of the assessee, Messrs. J.K. Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur.2. For the assessment year 1958-59, the assessee was assessed to sales tax amounting to Rs. 61,274. The assessee had already deposited a sum of Rs. 12,839.40. Hence, a demand for the balance amounting to Rs. 48,355.44 was raised. The Sales Tax Officer served a notice of demand upon the assessee along with the copy of the assessment order on 28th March, 1963, requiring the payment of the amount due within a certain time. The assessee did not pay the tax demanded within the time allowed. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings for imposing penalty under Section 15-A(1)(c) of the Act. A notice was served on the assessee informing him that he was in default and that he should show cause on 2nd July, 1963, why penalty be not imposed upon it. Neither the assessee, nor any one ...
Lala Badri Prasad and ors. Vs. Gouri Shanker and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All162
K.N. Srivastava, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:2. The plaintiff-respondent was the Lambardar Zamindar of the village where the disputed property was situated. He alleged that there was a custom in that village that when a 'riyaya' sold a house, the Zamindar got one-fourth of the sale consideration. Sri Ram, defendant No. 1, was in possession of a house as a 'riyaya'. He sold the same to the contesting defendant appellants for Rs. 12,000/- and, therefore, by virtue of the custom, referred to above, the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 3.000/- from the defendants.2A. The suit was contested by the vendees who denied the custom and stated that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to sue. Bar of limitation was also pleaded. It was further alleged that the contesting defendant-appellants were outsiders and were not bound by the custom and, as such, were not liable to pay the amount.3. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. Being dissatisfied, the defendant filed...
Achaibar Singh Vs. Ram Murat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All261
T.S. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-7-1969 passed by the Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Sultanpur. The facts giving rise to this appeal are in brief as follows. The decree-holder-appellant obtained a decree for possession of the northern portion of the land bearing No. 275/1. This portion of land was said to be having an area of 4 Biswas and 3 Dhurs. He put this decree under execution. An objection was filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the execution petition, on the ground that there is no demarcating boundary between the portion of the land in dispute and the land which is actually in possession of the judgment-debtor in his own rights and the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain possession unless he got the demarcation made through a Commissioner. The executing Court allowed the objection filed by the judgment-debtor holding that the decree in question was vague and ambiguous inasmuch...
Ramji Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1542
ORDERC.D. Parekh, J.1. This revision arises out of the order dated 16th May. 1969, passed in Criminal Case No. 30 of 1969 under Sub-section (1-B) of Section 146. Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants preferred revision against the order aforesaid before the Sessions Judge and the II Additional Sessions Judge. Ballia, by his order dated 10-10-1969 dismissed the revision application and did not refer the matter to this Court. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid the applicants have preferred this revision.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated thus: Proceedings under Section 141. Criminal Procedure Code were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Ballia. on the basis of a report, made by the Station Officer, P. S. Kotwali. Ballia; to the effect that a dispute likely to create breach of peace existed concerning three pieces of land described in detail in the report between the parties, The S. D. M. being satisfied about the existence of breach of peace in respect of the immova...
Bansraj Kahar Vs. Kaushal Kishore Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1973All99
Hari Swarup, J.1. This is defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the house in dispute and for possession over the same and for a sum of Rs. 180/- as damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of the house and had let out the premises to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. Plaintiff served on him a notice to quit on 25-10-1959. The defendant instead of vacating the premises denied the plaintiff's title and claimed title in himself. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit. The defence was that the house had been given to the defendant twenty-eight years back by Palakdhari Singh the original owner of the house from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased it on 20-7-1949. He also claimed to have acquired title under Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that he was holding the house and had spent considerable amount in re-constructing the same,2. The pla...
Babu Nandan and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All406
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. Bachai, respondent No. 4, filed a suit for partition under Section 49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act regarding plot No. 207 area. 58 acres situate within the Municipal limits of Jaunpur city. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 along with Babu Nandan, petitioner No. 1, were defendants to the said suit. Bachai plaintiff claimed one-fifth share in the disputed land on the ground of his being son of Ramesh-war. The petitioner-defendants contested the suit. Their main contention was that Bachai respondent No. 4 (plaintiff) was tarail son of Rameshwar and, as such, he was not entitled to any share in the land in suit. According to the plaintiff the land in suit was ancestral, coming down to the family from Chhaggu, father of Rameshwar. Bachai and defendants were sons of Ramesihwar and, as such, he claimed one-fifth share. Bachai further relied upon a permanent lease executedby the ex-zamindars in favour of Babu Nandan on 6th September. 1944, conferring certain additional rights on the l...
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mool Chand Wahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All413
Hari Swarup, J. 1. The defendant State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal against the decree passed by the firstappellate court. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of salary for the period 1-3-1955 to 31-3-1960. The trial court had decreed the entire suit on appeal filed by the State the decree was modified and a sum of Rs. 168/- allowed by the trial court in respect of the claim for good conduct allowance was disallowed. 2. The facts of the case are that by an order passed by the General Manager, U. P. Roadways on 13-8-1953 the petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a suit on 18-3-1955 being suit No. 165 of 1955, on the allegation that the order of dismissal was void and in operative. In the suit he claimed salary due for the period 20th June 1953 to 28th February, 1955. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff had not claimed salary for the pendency of the suit. Subsequently the plaintiff was re-instated but was not pai...
Hardayal Vs. District Judge, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972All471
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. A notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, for constituting certain land lying in village Dhaman, Tehsil Kalpi as reserved forest was issued in September 1954. Petitioner, Hardayal, claims that he is Sirdar of certain plots covered by the notification. According to him no proclamation as required by Section 6 of the act was published in the village. Accordingly, he and other tenure holders of the village were not aware of the proceedings taken under Indian Forest Act. They came to know about these proceedings towards the end of June, 1962, when some employees of the Forest Department began fixing pillars and demarcating land. The petitioner and other tenure-holders then filed objections, before the Forest Settlement Officer, claiming interest in various plots, on 9th of July, 1962, before issue of a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Settlement Officer accepted the claim made by the petitioner and directed that his sird...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »