Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All342
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This is an application under Sections 491 and 561A, Criminal P. C. A warrant dated 8th May 1949, was issued by Shri. V. K. B. Pillai, Regional Commissioner (who now takes the place of the Political Agent) of the United State of Rajasthan, under Section 7, Extradition Act, 1903 (XV [15] of 1903) for the arrest of the applicant, Dr. Ram Babu Saxena, and for his removal to the United State of Rajasthan to be delivered to the District Magistrate of Tonk for enquiry into certain offences against the laws of that State which he is said to have committed. The warrant was addressed to the District Magistrate of Naini Tal within whose jurisdiction the applicant resided at that time. The warrant authorised the District Magistrate of Naini Tal to release the applicant on bail if he furnished a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount, The warrant was served upon the applicant at Naini Tal on 23rd May 1949 and he was, thereafter, released on bail a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad13; (1952)IIMLJ416
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore granting to the plaintiff a preliminary mortgage decree.2. On the 20th February 1989, the first defendant executed a deed which is described as a usufructuary mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 4,000. The property comprised in the mortgage is a terraced building in Coimbatore. Under this document, it was stipulated that the mortgagee should in lieu of interest on the amount advanced enjoy the property mentioned, that is, the house as under a usufructuary mortgage. It further provided that:"Within a period of four years from this date, I shall pay you the above usufructuary amount and get return of the deed with endorsement of discharge thereon and along with the title deeds pertaining thereto. I shall also take possession of the under mentioned properties from you. If before the above period of four years I pay the principal sum you shall receive it. If I fail to pay the principal sum on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad396
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question in this case on facts not in dispute is whether, in execution of the personal liability clause of a decree creating that liability as well as a charge liability for payment of money, when the property charged is attached and sold pursuant to the attachment, a purchaser prior to the auction sale but after the date of the decree who has no notice of the charge at the time of his purchase is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and is therefore bound to fail in a later suit against him in enforcement of the charge. The Court below answered the question in the negative; the plain-tiff, the charge-holder, appeals against its judgment and decree refusing to recognise his right as superior to that of the defendant who became the purchaser admittedly after the date of the decree in the former suit but before the plaintiff's purchase in execution of that decree.2. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that notwithstanding the decree and subs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal157
ORDERHarries, C.J.1. This is a petition for revision of an order of a learned Presidency Magistrate convicting the accused persons of an offence under Section 341, Penal Code and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. How this dispute could be made the subject matter of criminal proceedings I find it difficult to understand. The learned Magistrate seems to think that it was not a civil dispute. But if ever there was a civil dispute this is one.3. Shortly the case of the complainant was that he was the tenant of certain rooms of the ground floor and of the first floor of the premises concerned, No. 310 Chittaranjan Avenue. According to him there were on the first floor a bathroom and a privy which he as tenant used. He went away according to his evidence on the last Saraswati Puja day and on returning the next morning found that the door of the bathroom and the privy on the first floor ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal186
G.N. Das, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 95 of 1941 of the Court of the 1st Munsif at Burdwan. Second Appeal No. 1773 of 1943 is at the instance of the plaintiff. Second Appeal No. 1827 of 1943 is at the instance of the defendant. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive title and possession in respect of Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 81 and 33 of khatian No. 253 of mouza Ichlabad. The plaintiff's allegation is that the plaintiff purchased the residuary share in touzi No. 147 of the Bardwan Collectorate in January 1936, the residuary share being 13 as. 6 gds. 3 karas and 3 tils, that the plaintiff obtained symbolical possession on 24th May 1936, that there was a separate account No. 16 comprising 2 gds. 2 karas 2 krantis and 2 tils share in the aforesaid touzi, the disputed lands being the lauds of the said separate account, that the defendant's predecessor held the said separate account which was closed and later on the previous owners of separate acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR467
Simonds, J.1. This appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of February 8, 1944, which affirmed (save for a certain modification in regard to interest) a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur of November 9, 1988.2. At all relevant times the appellants carried on business as traders at Sambalpur as a Hindu joint family under the name and style of Ramanand Ganpatrai. The first appellant was the managing member: the second and third appellants are his nephews and the fourth appellant is the son of the third appellant.3. The respondents are the sons and heirs of one Thanduram, who was first plaintiff in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises but has since died. At all relevant times these three persons carried on business as a Hindu joint family as dealers in rice and moneylenders at Sambalpur under the name and style of Thanduram Bajranglal.4. It is not disputed that between these two firms there had been prior to N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR469
Simonds, J.1. In this appeal, which is brought ex part from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort Wiliam in Bengal affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, it is necessary for their Lordships to deal only with one of the many questions which have in the course of the proceedings been debated in the Courts of India. Upon all other questions it has been properly conceded by learned Counsel for the appellants that the judgments under appeal cannot seriously be challenged.2. The single question argued before the Board was as to the validity of the plea raised by the appellants that the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit to be lawful heirs of one Safiquddin, who died in testate on March 11, 1924, was res judicata in a previous suit, namely Suit No. 1 of 1922, which had been heard and determined by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri on August 23, 1924. If that plea was valid, there was no question but that the appeal must succeed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom302; (1950)52BOMLR146
Shah, J.1. The appellants filed Special civil Suit no. 75 of 1914 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sholapur for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 12th May 1926, of Survey No. 50 of Bolkavathe in Sholapur Taluka executed by the father of defendants 5 and 6 and the grandfather of the appellants in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2 was intended to operate as a mortgage and consequently they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiffs prayed for an account of the mortgage and claimed redemption on payment of the balance remaining due, and further prayed for an order for payment of the amount found due by instalments. In the alternative, they asked for possession of the property on the ground that they had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession for a period of more than twelve years as against defendants 1 to 4, i. e. between 1926 and 1940, and that they were wrongfully deprived of possession of the property. The suit was filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP28; 1950CriLJ813
Mehta, J.1. This is an application by Mr. M. K. Deo, Advocate, Madhya Bharat High Court that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Subha and District Magistrate Indore to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order passed on 22nd October 1949 by District Magistrate Under Section 3.E. Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act. The said order prohibits the applicant for three months from participating in any meeting, public or private, organised by any association. It further prohibits the applicant from issuing any leaflet or newspaper, propagating communist views or that of Karmachari sangh. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Advocate-General that Madhya Bharat High Court is not invested with the jurisdiction to issue the high prerogative writ of certiorari. This would involve an inquiry into the nature and origin of the writ of certiorari as will as the constitution and jurisdiction of the power and authority of this Court.2. The ancient writ of certiorari in Engl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori107; 15(1949)CLT78
Das, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by a friend of one Baishnab Charan Patnaik who has been arrested on 22nd August 1943 and kept in Cuttack Jail, complaining that the said arrest and the jail custody are illegal. For purposes of convenience, the said Baishnab Charan Patnaik may be treated as the petitioner and will be referred to as such in the following.2. The petitioner was originally detained under Section 2, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948, by an order of the Provincial Government dated 28th October 1948. The said order was due to expire on 38th April 1949. Before its expiry, however, the Provincial Government passed another order of detention against him on 20th April 1949 for a further period of six months, on substantially the same grounds as those on which the first order of detention was made. The validity of this second order of detention was challenged by an application made to this Court in Cr. Misc. Application No. 119/49. This...
Tag this Judgment!