Allahabad Court January 1973 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.
Tej Shanker Chaubey Vs. Tej NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All229
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 arising out of a suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 for ejectment of the defendants from the accommodation in question and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The plaintiff had alleged that the defendant No. 2 was a sub-tenant and that the defendant No. 1 had committed a default within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act III of 1947 in payment of arrears of rent for more than three months after the service of notice of demand on him. He had also alleged that the defendant No. 1 had illegally and without the consent and permission sublet a portion of the accommodation in question to the defendant No. 2. On these two grounds he claimed a right to file a suit for eviction of the defendant after termination of the tenancy by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the defendants contested the suit and filed a separate written statement. In para. 10 of ...
Jamal UddIn and anr. Vs. Mosque at Mashakganj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All328
Jagmohan Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on behalf of the mosque of Mashakganj, Lucknow and its Mutawalli Abdul Haq, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us, in the Court of Musif North Lucknow on 24-4-1950 for possession over a piece of land situate in Mohalla Mashakganj of Lucknow City which was half part of Plot No. 292 of First Settlement, The suit was originally filed against Jamaluddin defendant-appellant No. 1 and his nephew Qamaruddin. Qamaruddin died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives who were his widow Smt. Nanhi and his brother Shamshuddin (defendant-appellant No. 2) were substituted for him.2. The suit had a chequered career. It was originally dismissed by the trial Court on 16-8-1960 on the finding that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the properly in suit within twelve years and the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed ce...
Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. University of Allahabad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All442
ORDERH.N. Seth, J.1. Petitioner Anil Kumar Srivastava, wanted to appear at the 1972 M.Sc. Final (Mathematics) Examination conducted by the Allahabad University, which was due to commence on 15th of April, 1972. On 13th of April, 1972 the Registrar of the University informed him that he could not appear in the examination as he had failed in the M.Sc. (Previous) examination held in the year 1971. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 14-4-1972, claiming a writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to permit him to appear in the M.Sc. (Final) examination and to declare his result.2. While admitting the writ petition this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear at the 1972 M. Sc. (Final) examination, but made it clear that declaration of petitioner's result would be subject to the ultimate decision in the writ petition-According to the petitioner, he appeared in the M....
Bijendra Vs. State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1973
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3767; II(1993)DMC187
Virendra Saran, J.1. Bijendra and Ram Babu, who are real brothers inter se, have filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 18-5-1979 of the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in S.T. No. 66 of 1979. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Bijendra Under Section 302 I.P.C. and appellant Ram Babu Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to imprisonment for life. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted co-accused Smt. Sheela and Km. Ramwati who are sister-in-law and younger sister respectively of the appellants. Informant Lajjo Ram has come up in a private revision against the order of acquittal of Smt. Sbeela and Km. Ramwati.2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the First Information Report is that on 17-11-1978 informant Lajjo Ram P.W. 1 had gone to his fields. At about 4 p.m. he was informed by his son Data Ram that Smt. Sheela and Km. Ramwati (the two acquitted accused) came and took with them deceased Smt. Sheela daughter of the informan...
Amroj Singh Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974All142
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession over the land shown by letters A B E H C D and for permanent injunction to restrain him from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land shown by letters U X Y Z in the map of the Commissioner dated 12-8-1960. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the parties to the suit were living jointly in the house which existed on plot No. 408, the main door of which is towards the north. He further alleged that in. February, 1960, the eastern wall as well a portion of the western wall of the Hats were got demolished by the defendant and with a view to make further constructions the defendant got dug the foundation. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that if the constructions were allowed to be made his passage for ingress and egress would be blocked. He also alleged that by the action of digging the foundation the defendant had interfered with the ...
Smt. Chandrawati Vs. Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All406
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision has been filed against the appellate order and proceedings arising out of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order of sale made under Section 2 of the Partition Act.2. A suit for partition of a house was filed. The plaintiff applied that as the house was too small to be partitioned it should be sold and proceeds distributed under Section 2 of the Partition Act. The Munsif on that application directed the sale of the house and the house was sold in auction. Smt. Chandravati the present applicant, purchased the property. On coming to know of the sale the defendants applied under Order 9. Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order of sale. Learned Munsif dismissed the application holding that the application was not maintainable as preliminary and final decrees had already been passed in the case. The defendants went up in appeal. The learned District Judge reversed the fin...
Afzal Ahmad Naqvi Vs. Dr. Kunj Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All445
Omprakash Trivedi, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by Afzal Ahmad Naqvi and arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1971 passed by the Civil Judge. Lucknow, setting aside the decree passed by Munsif North. Lucknow, in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.2. The respondents filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of Munsif North. Lucknow, for a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the defendant was their tenant in a certain house of which they were landlords, that the respondents had moved an application for permission to file a suit for ejectment under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) which permission was granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This permission was set aside by the Commissioner in revision; Whereupon the respondents filed a revision before the State Government by an order dated 5-8-1966 allowed the revision and granted to the respondents permission to fi...
Sitaram Vs. Ganesh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All449
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision is directed against the appellate order arising out of proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A. Civil P. C. Plaintiff had filed a suit for a permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit had prayed for a temporary injunction. The trial Court issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising any further constructions. It was found that the defendant applicant Sitaram in spite of the order of injunction having been served on him had put up a Unshed on the constructions. This was treated as breach of the injunction order and the Court ordered attachment of the property and his detention in Civil prison. Defendant went up in appeal and the appeal was dismissed, but a modification was made in the trial Court's order by substituting 15 days' imprisonment instead of unlimited civil imprisonment directed by the trial Court. Against that order the defendant has filed the present revision.2. The defendant had taken the plea that the...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR402(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has in compliance with the directions issued by this court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referred the following question of law for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 26,000 under Section 10(1) or Section 10(2)(xv) or Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The petitioner is a Hindu undivided family and Sri Jugal Kishore is the karta thereof. He was a director on behalf of the Hindu undivided family in Messrs. Ram Chand Sugar Mills (Private) Ltd. The board of directors of the company consisted of two groups. One group being of Sri Jugal Kishore and Sri Purshottam Das and the other of Lala Roshan Lal and Sri Ram Swaroop. These directors held twenty-five per cent. shares each in the company. The affairs of the company, in accordance with the articles of association, was to be managed by the two sets of dir...
Tribhuwan Dutt Misra Vs. District Deputy Director Consolidation and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All279
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Tribhuwan Dutt Misra and arises from consolidation matter.2. In the basic year records Smt. Rai Pali, widow of Sheo Shanker, was recorded as Bhumidiar of disputed plot Nos. 151, 152, 154 and 155 in village Kakrahia, Pargana Mijhaura, Tahsil Akbarpur, district Fazibad. She sold her Bhumidhari rights in plot Nos. 151, 152 and 154 to the petitioner by a sale deed executed on 14-8-1961 and made an oral transfer in respect of plot No. 155 in favour of the same person. At the very outset, it may be stated here that these transfers of the disputed plots by Smt. Raj Pali in favour of the petitioner were at no stage challenged before the consolidation authorities. Patiraj, opposite party No. 3, filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming rights in Plot Nos. 151,152 and 154 and another objection was filed under Section 9 of the said Act by Udai Raj an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »