Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2118
S.U. Khan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Veerpal, Chhaila and Lakhmi were co-tenure holders of several agricultural plots. They filed a suit for partition. Preliminary decree was passed declaring share of each to be 1/3rd. Thereafter, final decree was prepared in terms of compromise which was verified on 20.1.1981 and final decree was actually prepared on 13.1.1982. Separate plots were allotted to each of the three original co-tenure holders. Some of them sold the plots which had come in their exclusive share (or parts thereof). Thereafter through another compromise these three persons got the final decree earlier prepared set aside and fresh compromise decree passed readjusting the plots in such a manner that plots or parts thereof already sold by one party were reallotted to another party. Through my aforesaid judgment which is sought to be recalled/modified, I set aside the subsequent compromise partition decree and set aside the orders dated 25.11.1982, 21.6.1984 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2771
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A. K. Rai learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellants and Sri S. K. Verma learned senior counsel assisted by Siddharth Verma for the defendant respondent. This second appeal of the year 1996 has been listed for final hearing and is being decided finally today itself.2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 14.12.1995, passed in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1993 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sonebhadra whereby the first appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff Phekani filed a suit for cancellation of Will deed dated 29.11.1984. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiff Phekani was the child of Sri Gajadhar and Aliyari. After the mother Aliyari died Gajadhar married a second time to Sugani alias Ramdei who already had a minor daughter by the name of Rajwanti. These proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2009All187; 2009(3)AWC2852
Janardan Sahai and Ashok Srivastava, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned single Judge rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the respondents are not entitled to contest the proceedings relating to grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed. The appellant Shobhnath Dube claims to be the brother of Kashinath Dube and his case is that Kashinath Dube had executed an unregistered Will dated 14.12.2003 in his favour. On the death of Kashinath Dube he applied for grant of letters of administration. In the petition the appellant had shown Tara Devi widow of the deceased and Vijay Laxmi a married daughter of the deceased as heirs of the deceased. The Court by order dated 11.10.2007 issued notices to these persons whereupon the respondent-Tara Devi widow of the deceased filed a counter-affidavit opposing the grant. She however, did not lodge a caveat, which according to the appellant was a necessary requirement under Chapter XXX, Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC3102
Poonam Srivastav, J.1. On the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant, record of the lower court was summoned by this Court vide order dated 2.3.1989. Record of the lower court is available. Learned Counsels for the respective parties have agreed to argue the appeal finally at the stage of admission itself. The appeal is listed under Order XLI, Rule 11, C.P.C. but I proceed to hear the appeal finally.2. Heard learned Counsels for the respective parties.3. The instant case has a very long chequered history. The contesting defendant/respondent is a decree-holder and auction purchaser of the property in dispute consequent to execution proceeding in Original Suit No. 144 of 1967, against one Kamal Chand, respondent No. 2. This was a simple money decree. In Execution Case No. 9 of, 1969, the shop in question was auctioned in favour of respondent No. 1, Kamal Chand, respondent No. 2, claimed the property to be his exclusive property pursuant to the family partition dated 29.9.1966 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC4168
Sanjay Misra, J.1. Heard Sri Sankatha Rai learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Singh learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Narendra Mohan learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent Nos. 9 and 10. This second appeal is being decided finally today itself with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for specific performance with an alternative relief for recovery of the amount given by her in advance under the agreement of sale dated 18.4.1978 against respondent No. 1. The plaintiff-appellant's case was that she had entered into an agreement of sale and given advance for purchase of the house situate in Mohalla Dhuniyana Tola, Mirzapur City which was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent by two sale deeds in the year 1943 and 1947. The respondent No. 1 had accepted an advance of Rs. 2,000 and the respondent No. 1 alongwith respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who were her major son and daughters had s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR635]
Alok K. Singh, J.1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. 2. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 480 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Mahrajganj, District Rae Bareli. 3. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the only role assigned to him is that of making fire in air. The main role has been assigned to co-accused Satyendra Singh @ Vishal Singh. In respect of gang chart it is submitted that there is no other case except the present one which has been shown in it. It is said that initially the Investigating Agency did not find any case but subsequently on the basis of of further investigation a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against him. It is also said that out of ten accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2374
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.1. Writ Petition No. 60991 of 2006, O.P. Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. inter alia, has been filed for quashing the appointment letters dated 18.5.2006 and 14.2.2006 issued in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 (Narain Dutt Sharma and Bhagwat Saran) by the respondent No. 5 Authorized Controller/Committee of Management, C.A.S. Intermediate College, Fareedpur district Bareilly.2. Writ Petition No. 54934 of 2006, O.P. Awasthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. has been filed, inter-alia, challenging the order dated 8.9.2006 whereby the name of the respondent No. 5 Pramod Kumar Singh (in short 'P. K. Singh') recommended by Selection Board for appointment, on the post of assistant teacher, L.T. grade (English) was intimated to the management of the institute by the District Inspector of Schools (in short 'D.I.O.S.').3. Writ Petition No. 44499 of 2007, Bhagwat Saran v. State of U.P. and Ors. has been filed, inter alia, for quashing the order dated 1.8.2007 whereby respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3493
1. Record has been produced by learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri D.K. Upadhyaya.With the consent of the parties counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally, as in view of the record produced, learned State counsel says that there is no need to file counter-affidavit.2. The petitioner was initially empanelled as Additional District Government Counsel (Civil), Agra on 17-5-99. His term was renewed from time to time upto 1-7-03. On the renewal application of the petitioner, the District Judge, Agra on 18-7-03 submitted a favourable report recommending the name of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Agra also agreed with the recommendaion for renewal of the term of the petitioner.3. Since no orders were passed by the State Government either renewing or refusing, the renewal, the petitioner was allowed to discharge the functions of ADGC (Civil), a fact which is duly admitted to the State Government. He was thus, continuously attended the cases and was also being paid the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2115
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. Petitioner has taken a plea before this Court that the recovery certificate dated 16.2.2009 issued by the respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law. In support of his contention, he has shown us the provisions of Section 2(g) read with Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Naseer Usmani v. Central Bank of India and Ors. 2006 (1) SCC 205 : 2006 (1) AWC 962 (SC). It is to be remembered that this Bench has already passed several orders following the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgement in Iqbal Naseer Usmani v. Central Bank of India and Ors. : 2006 (2) SCC 241, which is parallel to the aforesaid Judgment but in the circumstances when the citation has been issued. In this case no citation has been issued but the demand notice has been issued. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner has an opportunity to take a defence by giving reply to the recovery notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2511
ORDERRajesh Kumar, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.6.2004, passed by Member, Board of Revenue in second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed in first appeal dated 26.3.1998 dismissing the appeal.2. It appears that one Sri Vir Bhadra Awasthi, father of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 filed suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The said suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 3.2.1991. Petitioner moved applications for recalling of the order on 29.6.1995 alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said applications were rejected on 4.7.1996, against which the petitioner filed appeal under Section 331 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, which has been dismissed on 26.3.1998. Against the said order, petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 63 of 1997 before the Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed by the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!