Allahabad Court October 2005 Judgments

Abdul Rahman Son of Faqir Bux Vs. Vth Additional District Judge,

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2006All45; 2006(2)AWC1240

D.P. Singh, J.1. Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may finally be disposed off under the Rules of the Court.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 4.5.1991 and 5.1.1996 whereby objection of the petitioner against the delivery of possession of the disputed house has been rejected by both the courts below.4. Father of the respondent No. 3 filed a money suit No. 285 of 1959 for recovery of sum of Rs. 400/-, which was decreed. An execution application was filed by him which was registered as execution case No. 186 of 1963 wherein the disputed house was- Sold in a - court auction on 29.3.1964 and was purchased by the decree holder himself. The sale was made absolute on 21.4.1964. After his death, the respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 225 of 1983 for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the disputed house wherein the petitioner allegedly resided. Th...

Ahmad Son of Natthoo, Vs. Iii Addl. District Judge,

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1309

S.U. Khan, J.1. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlady-respondent No. 3 Smt. Shanti Devi filed SCC suit No. 47 of 1984 against the tenants-petitioners before JSCC/Munsif, Shahjahanpur. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of default. In the said suit an application for striking off the defence of tenants-petitioners was filed on the ground that they had not deposited the entire arrears of rent admitted by them on the first date of hearing. The said application of the landlady was allowed ex-parte on 24.4.1986, as on that date tenant-petitioners had not appeared. Through the said order defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off. Thereafter plaintiff's evidence was recorded, evidence was closed, arguments were heard and 28.4.1986 was fixed for judgment. On 28.4.1986 the trial Court found that landlady-plaintiff failed to prove her case inspite of the fact that suit proceeded ex-parte. Suit was therefore dismissed through judgment and decree dated 28.4.1986. Against the...

Prem Raman Goswami Vs. 3rd A.D.J. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1092

S.U. Khan, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 2 Vishpati Pachauri filed S.C.C. Suit No. 49 of 1982 against tenant-petitioner Prem Raman Goswami since deceased and survived by legal representatives for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In the plaint it was alleged that rate of rent was Rs. 12 per month and tenant had not paid the rent since 12.10.1981. Summons of the suit was served upon the tenant-defendant through refusal. The service was held to be sufficient by the J.S.C.C./lst Additional Munsif, Mathura. Thereafter suit was decreed ex parte on 6.9.1982. The operative portion of the judgment contains only one line to the effect that plaintiffs suit against defendant is decreed ex parte with cost. Thereafter tenant filed restoration application on 16.10.1982 and deposited an amount of Rs. 210 along with restoration application in compliance of provisions of Section 17 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The trial court allowed the restoration applic...

Dinesh Pratap Singh Son of Karuna Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. State of ... Overruled

Court: Allahabad

G.P. Srivastva, J.1. All the above writ petitions involve common questions and are therefore being decided by this common judgment.The genesis :2. The U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) held the U.P. P.C.S. (J) Examination - 2003 (hereinafter referred as the 2003 recruitment) for recruitment to 347 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) to the U.P. Judicial Service. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Commission cancelling their candidature for the 2003 recruitment. The candidature was cancelled on the ground that these candidates were overage and therefore not eligible to appear at the said examination.3. For appreciating the controversy, it is necessary to give facts and the history of the Rules involved.4. Prior to the disputed 2003 recruitment, the last recruitment was held in the calendar year 2000. The advertisement-issued by the Commission for the year 2003 recruitment permitted all the candidates who were age wise eligible i...

Shri Th. Brashbhanji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Through Its Shebait Shri ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR2006All34; 2006(1)AWC914

Sunil Ambwani, J.1. The question, which calls for consideration in this second appeal whether a female Hindu can inherit 'shebaitship' of a Hindu temple? and whether she can execute a deed for management of such right in favour of her married daughter2. The plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for declaration that defendant Smt. Kampuri, widow of Shri Nandi did not have any right to inherit 'shebaitship' of Shri Thakur Brashbhanji Maharaj, an idol in a temple in village Barsana, including about 22 khotharis on the boundaries of its compound. The plaintiff alleged that these khotharies are the properties of Thakurji (the Deity), which belongs to the family of their common ancestor Shri Murlidhar. These khotharies are also used for kitchen and Bhandara of the temple, and some land in the North is used as Nohra. Shri Thakurji (the Deity) also possess agricultural land, which was recorded in consolidation operation in the name of Thakur Brashbhanji Maharaj. Apart from this declaration, the pl...

Ashok Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Kumar Yadav, Regular Collection AmIn Vs. ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR541]

Arun Tandon, J.1. Petitioner Ashok Kumar Yadav, who was employed as Collection Amin in Tehsil Phoolpur, district Azamgarh, was served with a charge sheet dated 16th February, 2003. Petitioner submitted his reply to the same vide letter dated 28.4.2003. The enquiry officer is alleged to have submitted its report dated 20.5.2003, where under he found, the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. On the basis of the enquiry report so submitted, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh proceeded to pass the impugned order of punishment dated 10th July, 2003, whereby following punishments have been imposed:(a) Petitioner is reinstated at the initial of the pay scale,(b) for the period of suspension petitioner may not be paid anything over and above the subsistence allowance, and(c) censer entry is awarded to petitioner.2. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that reduction to the initial of the pay scale is a major penalty in view of the provisions of Rule 3 of the U.P. Governm...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rundhawati and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: I(2006)ACC127

R.P. Misra , J.1. Heard Mr. Amresh Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant.2. This first appeal from order is directed against the award of motor accident Claims Tribunal. An accident is alleged to have taken place on 6.11.2003, when the deceased Brahmanand was going on by a cycle, with a mini truck No. U.P. 58/8256 on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. Brahmanand, in unconscious condition, was admitted in District Hospital, Sidharthnagar where he died on 11.11.2003 on account of serious injuries sustained in the accident. The dependents of the deceased namely his wife and son filed a claim petition claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,38,000 along with 15% interest. The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the claim of Rs. 1,20,000 towards compensation along with 6% interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment.3. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded is highly excess as there was no proof of ...

Gaurishankar Vs. Sita Ram and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(1)AWC1054

ORDERAnjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court dated 28th September, 2005, whereby the revisional court allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 27th September, 2004, passed by the trial court, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. The brief facts of the present case are that during the pendency of suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27th September, 2004. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the respondent-defendant preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court vide order impugned in the present writ petition allowed the revision filed by the respondent observing that by the amendment since the plaintiff has c...

imtiaz Ahmad Vs. A.D.J. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1190

Shishir Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.12.2000, passed by the respondent No. 1 (Additional District Judge, Fatehpur) by which the amendment application of the petitioner has been rejected.2. The petitioner filed a Suit No. 6, of 1982 in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur, for the relief of injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed. It has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was dispossessed from the property in dispute on 20.3.1983. The petitioner filed an amendment application for amendment, claiming the relief of possession. The Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, heard the amendment application and allowed the same by judgment and order dated 8.4.1997. The contesting respondents (defendants) filed a Revision No. 46 of 1997 in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 6.12.2000 and set aside the judgment and order dated 8.4.1997 and reject...

Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, North Central Railway Vs ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: III(2006)ACC596; 2007ACJ985

U.K. Dhaon and R.P. Yadav, JJ.1. Heard Mr. Anil Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravindra Pratap Singh and Mr. P.P. Singh the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.1.2005, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow awarding compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 for the injuries sustained by her in an untoward incident dated 23.4.2003.3. Sarita, the respondent was travelling by train 2TC passenger on 23.4.2003 from Balrai to Etawah with a valid journey ticket, which she had allegedly purchased from Railway Station, Balrai. She was thrown off the train on account of heavy rush of passengers, with the result, she became unconscious and in the meantime goods train passed from that very railway track, which amputated both her legs and three fingers of left hand. She was removed from railway line by G.R.P. personnel, ...