Allahabad Court November 1980 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.
Smt. Sulochana Vs. Ram Kumar Chauhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All78
V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. This second appeal is by the wife who is aggrieved by a decree of judicial separation passed by the Civil Judge, Roorkee on April 15, 1978 in matrimonial Case No. 126 of 1974 and affirmed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by his order dated January 23, 1979 in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1978. 2. The petition was presented by the husband, respondent in this appeal, on August 12, 1974. In this petition it was prayed that his marriage with the appellant which was solemnised on May 10, 1965 be dissolved by a decree of divorce or, alternatively a decree for judicial separation be passed in favour of the husband. The relief aforesaid was sought by the husband on allegations which were in substance these; The appellant (Smt. Sulochana) was married to him according to Hindu Vedic rites on May 10, 1'965 at village Bishanpura Rohalki, Pargana Jwalapur, District Saharanpur and she has a son aged about two years; the appellant was found to be of extrem...
Janardan Prasad and anr. Vs. Girja Prasad Seth
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All86
Yashoda Nandan, J. 1. When this plaintiffs' Second Appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and for ejectment of the defendant-respondent came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he referred the following question for the opinion of a Division Bench:-- 'Whether the giving of a notice of demand under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947, on behalf of a landlord, who is a Hindu minor (aged over, 5 years) by the mother of the minor amounts to a dealing with the property of a Hindu minor, and whether the giving of such a notice will be a valid notice ?'Occasion for reference of the above quoted question arose because a learned single Judge of this Court in K. Kumar v. Onkar Nath : AIR1972All81 has held that giving of notice of demand and filing a suit is not 'disposing of or dealing with the property' within the contemplation of Section 11 of Act 32 of 1956. The learned Judge hearing t...
Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Prem Kumar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All83
Murlidhar, J.1. These four second appeals are like the suits giving rise to them being disposed of by a common judgment. The main second appeal No. 2588 of 1972 is by the defendant. Smt. Sushila Devi and arises out of a suit for possession filed by Prem Kumar for a house property in respect of which Prem Ku-mar's grand-father Bhagwan Singh father Ram Pratap and uncle Kishan Dutta had executed a gift-deed 7-7-39 in favour of a deceased uncle's widow Kaushilya Devi. Prem Kumar was born on 24-4-39. He filed the suit on 25-4-60 (as 24-4-60 was a Sunday) claiming that he was filing it within three years of becoming a major. He alleged in the suit that the property was joint family property and the gift-deed was invalid. Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 were the other members of the family namely his father, uncle and brothers. Defendants Nos. 9 to 11 were tenants in part of this property. These tenants are the respective defendant-respondents in the remaining three appeals. The principal defendant in...
Atal Singh and ors. Vs. Kesho Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All116
H.N. Seth, J.1. This appeal by judgment-debtor is directed against the appellate order dated 14th Aug., 1973 passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Kisho Ram (respondent in this appeal) filed Suit No. 106 of 1967 against Kapoor Singh and others for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over certain agricultural plots. The suit was decreed on 22nd Dec., 1967. The decree-holder presented an execution application under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Civil P. C. with the allegation that the judgment-debtor had disobeyed the decree for injunction and had misappropriated decree-holder's crops standing on certain plots. The judgment-debtor filed objections to the prayer made in the laid application which were rejected by the executing Court vide its order dated 28th Aug., 1969. The executing Court directed that the properties, detailed at the foot of the execution applicat...
State of U.P. Vs. District Judge, Bijnor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All205
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through the Divisional Forest Officer, Bijnor, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Judge, Bijnor, dated Nov. 3, 1971 and the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor dated Nov. 27, 1967.2. Briefly the facts are that the notifications under Ss. 4, 6, and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were issued bv the State Govt. for declaring a certain area as a reserved forest in the district of Bijnor. The village Shahnagar Kurali falls within that area and river Ramganga flows through the reserved forest. Abdul Latif respondent No. 3 claiming himself to be the secretary of the Union of Fishermen and representative of fishermen Biradari of village Shahnagar Kurali, made an application before the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 12 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the grant of fishing right free of c...
Zameer Ahmad and ors. Vs. State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All92
B.N. Sapru, J. 1. Land belonging to the applicants was acquired under the provisions of the U. P. Land Acquisition Act. They made an application to the Collector under Section 18(1) of the Act under which they prayed that the matter be referred by the Collector to the Court for its determination. The Collector, thereupon, made a reference under Section 19(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court. After considerable delay, the applicant made an application to the court for an amendment. By the amendment, the applicant wanted to state that he was a Sirdar to the extent of 2/3rd and the area acquired was 64 bighas 11 biswas and he wanted an additional amount of Rs. 58,689 as compensation instead of Rs. 34,430. 2. The Addl. District Judge rejected the application on two grounds: (1) as the Judge was doubtful whether the court had any power to amend the reference made by the Collector and (2) that the application for amendment was very belated and no proper explanation for the delay in s...
Arjun Lal Vs. 3rd Addl. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All93
ORDERA.N. Verma, J. 1. This petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below dismissing an abjection filed by the petitioners against the execution of a decree obtained by the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 against petitioner No. 2.2. These are the facts :The respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as the owners and landlords of the accommnoda-tion in dispute--of which the petitioner No. 2 Lakshman Das was the tenant --filed a suit for the ejectment of the latter as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The said suit was decreed by the court of the learned Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur in September, 1973. Lakshmao Das, petitioner No. 2 preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise which was recorded on 9-1-1974. The material terms of the compromise were that the plaintiffs would not execute their decree for ejectment for a period of four years i.e. up to 31-12-1977. During this period, the defendant Lakshman Das was to ...
Malkhan Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All96
S.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Raghubir Sineh for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5-9-1970 by virtue of which it was alleged that the appellant had agreed to sell to the plaintiff-respondent his Khata No. 15 area 8 Bighas 4 Biswas and 10 Biswansis for a sum of Rs. 16,000. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that on 5th September, 1970 the appellant Malkhan Singh executed an agreement to sell the plots in dispute for a sum of Rs. 16,000, A sum of Rs. 11,000 was paid to the appellant as part payment of the agreed price. The appellant further agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed land on payment of balance consideration of Rs. 5,000 within a period of nine months. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that in spite of several requests the appellant did not execute the sale deed and hence the plaintiff-respondent gave a notice on 6-5-1971 asking the appellant t...
Ram Gopal Vs. Man Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All352
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment from, and rent and damages in respect of a shop.2. The appellant became a tenant of the shop in the year 1962 under a Sarkhat dated 3rd March, 1962, on payment of Rs. 32/- p. m. as rent. By a notice dated 12th July, 1966 rent for the period of 18 months from 3rd January; 1965 to 2nd July, 1966 was demanded from the appellant and his tenancy was also purported to be terminated by the same notice (Ext. 1) with effect from 12th August, 1966. A reply dated 20th July, 1966 was sent by the defendant and the rent demanded was also remitted in full by money-order on 27th July, 1966. But the plaintiff refused to receive the same on 5th August, 1966, whereupon it is said to have been deposited in Court under Section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, III of 1947, on the 9th August, 1966, vide Ex. A-3.3. The notice dated 12th July, 1966, expressly stated that if the rent demanded was not paid wi...
Smt. Narayani Devi Vs. Phool Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981All99
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal.2. On May 27, 1966 the plaintiff purchased a house from one Sita Ram through a registered sale deed. Immediately to the west of this house was a piece of land 39.6' long and 3.6' wide. The latrine of the house, which was constructed by Sita Ram in the year 1941, opened towards this piece of land and the sweeper used to clean the same by passing over this strip of land. A few days earlier, on May 16, 1966, Sita Ram sold this strip of land to the defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants had purchased the land lying to the west of this strip of land also and while building a house had started raising constructions on this strip of land as well with the result that the egress and ingress of the sweeper for the purpose of cleaning the latrine had been obstructed.3. There was an earlier litigation between Sita Ram and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants of the property lying to the west of the land in suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »