Allahabad Court April 1979 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.
Hazari and anr. Vs. Suresh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1979All242
P.N. Goel, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17-1-1969 passed by the District Judge, Fatehpur in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1967.2. The suit was brought by two brothers. Suresh, aged about 28 years and Santosh Kumar, aged about 17 years for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants and Ram Bhajan, defendant respondent No. 3, from interfering in irrigating their fields 156, 157, 158, 154 and 155 through water channel MN and NL shown in the sketch map attached to the plaint. They further claimed Rs. 50/- as damages for the demolition of pairhi ABCD to the south of the well. They alleged that the well and pairhi existed in plot 113 carved out in consolidation proceedings which corresponded to plot No. 319 of the settlement of the year 1319 F, that the well belonged to their ancestor Badla, that Pairhi ABCD belonged to them and that they were irrigating treir fields since a long time.3. Ram Bhajan, defendant respondent admitted all the all...
Rani Devi Vs. Trilok Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980All111
ORDERMahavir Singh, J. 1. This is a revision by the defendant-applicant against the order of the learned lower appellate court rejecting her application for amendment of the written statement. 2. Relevant facts are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for possession of a house. He had alleged that he was the allottee of this house and that he had allowed the defendant No. 1 appellant to live with him for some time but in his absence she got the house allotted in her name. Later, on his representation, the allotment was cancelled but she forcibly occupied the house and took away some articles. He valued the suit on the annual rent at Rs. 132/-. 3. The defendant No. 1 appellant contested the suit on various grounds which are not relevant for the purpose of this revision, 4. The learned lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The defendant No. 1 then filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, During the course of the pendency of the appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›