Allahabad Court September 2005 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.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Mishra Son of Shri Raj Nath Mishra Vs. Shrimati Ri ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005All379; 2006(1)AWC346; II(2005)DMC810
1. This appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act challenges the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in matrimonial petition No. 161 of 2003 rejecting the application of the appellant husband filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming custody of the minor female child and allowing the application of the respondent wife filed under Section 27 of the said Act for refund of a sum of Rs.96,000/- in lieu of the cash, gift and other items given in the marriage.2. The facts are that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the appellant husband seeking divorce. The case set up in the petition was that parties were Hindu and were married according to Hindu customs and rites on 29.4.1996. On the first night the wife disclosed about her love affairs and sexual relationship prior to marriage and after the love affair came to light her parents forced her to marry much agai...
Rani Ramakant Vs. the First Additional Civil Judge (Sd)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All5; 2006(2)ARBLR452(All); 2006(1)AWC271
ORDERD.P. Singh, J.1. This petition was filed on 26th May, 1999. It was taken up by the Court on 27th May, 1999 when notices were directed to be issued to the respondents to enable them to file counter affidavit. From the office report dated 3-7-1999 it transpires that the registered notices were issued fixing 2nd of August, 1999.2. By the office report dated 22-12-1999, the office has reported that registered A.D. notices had been sent but neither the acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has returned. On this note, a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 27-4-2001 has held that service on the respondents under the Rule of the Court is sufficient and directed the matter be placed before the Court in the week commencing 7th May, 2001. This petition was taken up on several occasions but till date neither any one has appeared nor filed any counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents.3. This Court is left with no other option but to hear the petition on merits.4. Heard le...
Gopal Prasad Agrawal Vs. Mahendra Singh Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC51
S.U. Khan, J.1. The property in dispute is a shop which has been allotted to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary, respondent No. 1 by R.C. and E.O., Mathura on 1.1.2003. Petitioner was in possession of the shop. In execution of the aforesaid allotment order he was dispossessed on 3/4.3.2004. According to the petitioner he was owner of the shop and running a medical store in the shop in dispute for long time. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Shashi Gupta consented for allotment of the shop in favour of respondent No. 1 through an endorsement on the allotment application of respondent No. 1. In the allotment application it was mentioned that Smt. Shashi Gupta was the owner.2. Against allotment order dated 1.1.2003, petitioner claiming to be the owner filed review under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before R.C. and E.O., Mathura. Thereafter against allotment order revision was also filed by the petitioner along with application for condonation of delay which was registered as Misc. Case No. 171 of...
Smt. Rameshwari Devi (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. D.J. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC488
S.U. Khan, J.1. Original petitioner Smt. Rameshwari Devi (since deceased and survived by legal representative) was the owner of the house in dispute. She sold it to one Brij Kishore on 16.5.1960. Simultaneously Brij Kishore permitted petitioner and her husband to continue to live in the house in dispute on payment of rent of Rs. 15 per month. The allegation in para 2 of the writ petition that petitioner was not owner of the house in dispute when she sold it in the year 1960 cannot be accepted as petitioner is estopped from denying her own title after executing the sale deed. Similarly allegation in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that petitioner sold the house against a conditional sale deed to Brij Kishore also cannot be accepted for the reason that it has not been shown that either in the said sale deed there was a clause of re-purchase or any agreement for re-conveyance was executed by Brij Kishore.2. According to para 5 of the writ petition after becoming the tenant of the house i...
Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. Vs. Lucknow Docesan Trust Associati ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1656
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The revisionist applicant by means of this revision challenges the order passed by the trial court dated 22.8.2005, whereby the trial court recorded a finding that in the facts and circumstances of the case no ex parte temporary injunction can be granted unless the other side is heard.2. According to the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as amended in the State of U. P. the exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is subject to the following conditions, namely:115. Revision. --The High Court, in case arising out of original suits or other proceedings (of the value exceeding one lakh rupees or such higher amount not exceeding five lakh rupees as the High Court may from time to time fix, by notification published in the Official Gazette including such suits or other proceedings instituted before the date of commencement of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991, or as the case may be, the date of commencement of such notificati...
Sushil Kumar and anr. Vs. Om Prakash Shop Keeper and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC45
Anjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners challenges judgment and order passed by revisional court dated 22nd September, 2003 and the judgment and order dated 13th May, 1997 passed by the trial court.2. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord-petitioners purchased the property in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 4th March, 1987. The petitioners filed a suit being Suit No. 69 of 1988 for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent-tenants on the ground that the tenants being in arrears of rent for more than four months and have not paid the same in spite of service of notice. Therefore, the tenancy was terminated and suit was filed. One additional ground was taken in the suit that the tenants have materially and structurally altered the accommodation in dispute which has diminished the utility and also the value of the accommodation in dispute. The Suit No. 69 of 1988 was withdrawn and the present su...
Church City Junior High School Shiksha Samiti and anr. Vs. Mahendra Ku ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC53
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit being Suit No. 112 of 1991 against the petitioner on the ground that they are the tenant of the accommodation in dispute which is owned by the respondent-landlord. The suit was filed with the allegation that the landlord purchased the property in dispute on 12.3.1990. Thereafter on 27.4.1991, a notice was sent by the landlord informing the aforesaid fact to the tenant. A notice demanding the arrears of rent w.e.f. 12.3.1990 and terminating the tenancy was issued by the landlord on 24.9.1991, which was served on the petitioner-tenant on 1.5.1999. Thereafter the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent-landlord for the arrears of rent and ejectment before the trial court. The petitioner-defendants filed their written statement and denied the title of the landlord and also denied that they are liable to pay the rent to the plaintiff-landlord. After filing of the aforesaid written statement, the defendant filed an application se...
Lakhpat Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Yashoda Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC69
S.U. Khan, J.1. Original petitioner Lakhpat Singh (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) filed an application for allotment of property in dispute on 4.12.81. At that time property in dispute was in the shape of a kothri and Mahant Hari Das was landlord of the said property. Mahant Hari Das filed objection stating therein that the kothri was in a dilapidated condition and it was in his possession and it was never let out before. R.C. and E.O., Mathura, on 20.7.1982. declared the vacancy and thereafter allotted the building in dispute to the petitioner on 30.7.1983. Against the allotment order Mahant Hari Das filed revision before District Judge, however during pendency of the revision he sold the property in dispute to Yashoda Devi respondent No. 1 on 17.2.1984. Thereafter Mahant Hari Das did not pursue his revision which was dismissed in default. Thereafter Yashoda Devi filed civil suit in which status quo order remained in operation for several years. After vacation o...
Sauquat Ali Vs. Distt. Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)AWC111
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the order dated 23rd August, 2002, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the release application filed by the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act') and the order dated 15th January, 2003, passed by revisional court by which the revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the landlord-petitioner, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'19' and '21' respectively to the writ petition.2. In brief the case set up by the petitioner-landlord is that originally Janak Singh was the tenant of the shop in dispute situated in the accommodation in question since before 1975. After the riots which has taken place in the year 1984, Janak Singh has vacated the shop in dispute and handed over the possession of the same to one Jan Mohammad, contes...
Ram Babu Babelay S/O Sree Krishan Babelay Vs. Smt. Sandhya Daughter of ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006All12; 2006(1)AWC183
R.K. Rastogi, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.1.1999 passed by Sri M.Q. Siddiqui, then learned Judge Family Court, Jhansi in Suit No. 34/98, Ram Babu Babeley v. Smt. Sandhya.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff appellant filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant-respondent in the court of Family Judge, Jhansi under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that the marriage of the parties had taken place according to the Hindu Rites on 15.5.1981. The plaintiff Ram Babu Babeley was working as a. labourer mostly at Nagpur and Maharashtra under the contractors and so he asked the defendant to reside at Nagpur with him as he had already taken a room on rent at Nagpur ,but she refused to do so, and after lapse of two months from the date of marriage she went to her parents' house at village Dinara . She said to the plaintiff that he should not go outside Jhansi and then only she would reside with him and not o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »