Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: allahabad Year: 1955 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.009 seconds)

Sep 28 1955 (HC)

Bal Mukandji Maharaj Vs. Gokaran Singh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All124

roy, j.1. this is a second appeal by the plaintiff. a suit was instituted in the revenue court under section 226, agra tenancy act of 1926 by rani roop kunwar for the recovery for profits for the years 1341, 1342 and 1343 fasli of her share of property of mohal bhup singh kabza no. 1 in village rachhoha against diwan gokaran singh son of diwan chet singh, the lambardar of the mohal.the defence raised on behalf of diwan gokaran singh was that the husband of the plaintiff, namely, th. thamman singh died in a state of jointness with the defendant, and the property in suit being joint ancestral property, the plaintiff could not succeed to it, and the property devolved on diwan gokaran singh by a right of survivorship under the rules of the mitakshara law.the revenue court framed an issue, namely, whether the family ceased to be a joint family about 20 years ago in the life-time of th. thamman singh, and the revenue court referred that issue to the civil court for a finding. when the issue was received by the munsif of fatehabad at agra for determination, the learned munsif considered that the main question for decision was whether th. thamman singh had separated from his brothers and nephews prior to his death, and whether there did occur a disruption in the joint status of the family prior to th. thamman singh's death.the learned munsif gave a finding on 14-10-1941, holding that the plaintiff's theory of disruption and separation, as alleged by her, was correct. the revenue .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1955 (HC)

Bithal Das Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-02-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All156; [1956]30ITR647(All)

mootham, c.j.1. these are six applications under section 24 (4), u. p. agricultural income-tax act arising out of the refusal of the revision board to state a case for the opinion of this court. these six applications are based on the same facts and purport to raise common questions of law.2. one sri mahadeo prasad was in the year 1355 fasli the manager of a joint hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his widowed mother and his three sons, and in that year he was assessed to agricultural income-tax as the head of the family. in the following year sri mahadeo prasad filed an application before the collector, gorakhpur, who was the assessing authority, alleging that a separation had taken place in the family and that the shares of the members had been declared by a decree of the civil court dated 12-12-1948.the collector was satisfied that there had been a disruption of the joint family, and by an order dated 15-10-1949, he transferred the case to the assistant collector directing him to assess separately each of the six members of the family, the assistant collector- did so on 25-10-1949, when he passed a separate assessment order in respect of each of the six members of the family.3. on 6-12-1950, the state filed an application in revision against the orders of the col- lector and assistant collector dated respectively the 15th october and 25th october, 1949. it seems that the only prayer was that the assessment orders be set aside and it appears -that sri mahadeo .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1955 (HC)

Munshi and ors. Vs. Chiranji Singh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-02-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All237

raghubar dayal, j.1. two plots nos. 62/1 and 64/3 in village sahawali, pargana rajpura, tahsil gunnaur, district budaun, were mortgaged in 1891 with possession. the representatives of the mortgagor applied under section 12, u. p. agriculturists' relief act (no. 27 of 1934) for an order directing that the mortgage be redeemed and that they be put in possession of the mortgaged property. they deposited rs. 65/- alleging it to be the amount which was due on the mortgage.the representatives of the mortgagee objected to the redemption of the mortgage and the assistant collector enquired into the matter and held that plot no. 62/1, which corresponded to the theft plot no. 111, had not been mortgaged and that rs. 65 was the amount due under the mortgage. he ordered redemption of the mortgage with respect to plot no. 64/3, corresponding to the then plot no. 77, payment of the money deposited to the mortgagee and delivery of possession to the mortgagor.on appeal to the district judge under section 23, agriculturists' belief act, the order of the assistant collector was maintained. the appellate order was passed on 14-4-1945.2. in may 1949 more than three years after the passing of the appellate order the representatives of the mortgagor-decree-holders applied in execution for the recovery of possession. this application was dismissed as time-barred.3. the representatives of the mortgagor then filed another application under section 12, agriculturists' relief act in the court of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1955 (HC)

Gaya Deen Vs. Mst. Amrauti

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-04-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All630

agarwala, j. 1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a property which was in possession of one mst. newasi while she was alive and which she had, during her life-time, transferred by means of a sale deed to the respondent. the facts briefly stated are as follows:there were three brothers, debi prasad, shiva prasad and mahabir, who formed a joint hindu family. shiva prasad died in 1906 leaving smt. sambodha as his widow; mahabir died in 1916 leaving smt. newasi as his widow; and debi prasad died in 1925 leaving smt. tulsa as his widow. as the brothers were all members of a joint hindu family, on the death of shiva prasad the estate passed to debi prasad and mahabir; and on the death of mahabir, debi prasad was the sole surviving coparcener of the property, and in law became the exclusive owner of the property, and the widows had only a claim for maintenance.the plaintiff-appellant is a collateral of debi prasad. on the deaths of shiva prasad and mahabir, however, the names of their widows were entered. smt. sambodha's name was entered over one-third of the property and so was the name of newasi entered over another one-third of the property. apparently the names of shiva prasad, mahabir and debi prasad were entered on the record as owners of the property in equal shares, though no village record has been filed in the case showing the nature of the entry.2. after the death of shiva prasad and mahabir, smt. sambodha, jointly with debi prasad, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1955 (HC)

Abdul Wajid Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-30-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All708

agarwala, j.1. this is a special appeal against the decision of a learned single judge of this court dismissing the appellant's petition under article 226 of the constitution. the facts briefly are as follows:2. in october 1953, the appellant was elected a president of the municipal board, bareilly. on 15-12-1954, a notice of intention to move a non-confidence motion was given by twenty-seven members of the board to the district magistrate along with the motion of non-confidence. this was under section 87a (2) of the municipalities act.3. thereupon the district magistrate issued notice to the members of the board that a meeting to consider the non-confidence motion would be held on 17-1-1955, at 11 a. m. in the municipal office. the notice, however, was not accompanied with a full copy of the non-confidence motion. on 17-1-1955 a meeting was held and the chairman of the meeting was mr. r.p. saksena, civil & sessions judge of bareilly. he had no copy of the non-confidence motion with him. it was sent for from the office of the district magistrate within five minutes and the proceedings were commenced by reading out the text of the motion of non-confidence. thereafter discussions took place, and after discussions votes taken, and 32 persons are said to have voted for the motion, out of 38 that were present. the presiding officer thereupon declared the motion to be carried and sent intimation of the same to the district magistrate and the appellant.4. these proceedings are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1955 (HC)

Shariff Ahmad Vs. the State

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-05-1955

Reported in : AIR1957All50; 1957CriLJ28

mukerji, j.1. these are two connected appeals that have arisen out of the same incident. the appellants in both the appeals were convicted at the same trial which was held by the sessions judge of moradabad. the appellants have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34, penal code and each one of them has been sentenced to transportation for life.2. the charge against the appellants was that they intentionally caused the death of onedurgpalsingh, who was a constable, in furtherance of the common intention of all of them, on the night between the 3rd and 4th of october, 1950,in mohalla jagat within the police station of sambhal. a first information report was lodged at police station sambhal by constable gulzari lal on the morning of the 4th of october at 7.15 a.m.according to the time set down in this first information report of the offence, the offence is said to have been committed in the small hours of the morning of the 4th, that is to say, about 1 o'clock. the place of occurrence is said to be the playground of the hind higher secondary school of mohalla jagat. this play-ground is said to be situate at a distance of about four furlongs towards the east of the police station. the occurrence fell within the police output of panju sarai of police station may here be noted that the first information report by gulzari lal did not contain an eye-witness account of the incident because gulzari lal was not an eye-witness of the incident but made the report .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1955 (HC)

Sehat Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Abdul Qavi Khan and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All273

agarwala, desai and v. bhargava, jj.1. this case has been referred to this bench for a decision of the question whether in a letters patent appeal the time requisite for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree should be excluded in computing the period of limitation fixed by the rules of this court for preferring a letters patent appeal. a full bench of four judges of the allahabad high court in 'fazal muhammad v. phul kuar', 2 all 192 (a) has to be considered and, if found to lay down incorrect law, has to be overruled. we think in these circumstances it would be advisable that a bench of five judgea be constituted in order to decide the case.2. we, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before the hon'ble the chief justice for constituting a larger bench.mootham, c.j.3. the question which has been referred to this bench is whether the time required for obtaining copies of the judgment and. decree appealed from should be excluded in computing the period .of limitation for preferring an appeal fixed by the rules of this court under the letters patent. the relevant facts are that judgment in two connected second appeals was delivered by brij mohan lall j. on 3-10-1950, the learned judge granting leave to the present appellants to file a further appeal under the letters patent. the letters patent ceased to have effect from the date upon which the u.p. high courts (amalgamation) order, 1948 came into force, but by virtue of clause 9 of that order and article .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1955 (HC)

Misri Lal and anr. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-12-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All573

randhir singh, j. 1. this is an appeal against the order of the additional civil judge of gonda dismissing an application under section 14 of the indian arbitration act which was treated as a suit, for the filing of an award and for a decree on the basis of the award.2. the plaintiffs appellants and the defendant are own brothers, being the sons of patan din. they formed a joint hindu family and were possessed of business and movable and immovable properties. disputes arose amongst the brothers and ultimately itwas agreed that the properties be partitioned. anagreement was executed on the 8th october, 1946, by means of which the parties appointed six arbitrators, including a sarpanch, for the partitioning of the properties and for settling, the dispute.the arbitrators then entered upon their duty and after examining the parties and their evidence gave an award on 13-1-1947. the award was registered. on 14-7-1947, an application was made by the plaintiffs appellants purporting to be one under section 14 of the arbitration act, though it was wrongly described as an application under section 51 of the act, praying that the arbitrators be directed to file the award and a decree be passed on the basis of the award.notices were then issued to the respondent and the arbitrators; and bechchu lal the sarpanch filed the award in court along with the registered agreement on 25-8-1947. objections were, however, raised on behalf of the respondent challenging the validity of the award on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 1955 (HC)

Jagannath Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All432

mootham, c.j. 1. two questions have been referred to this full bench for decision. the circumstances in which the reference has been made are these:2. in 1950 or early in 1951 the petitioner, who was the tenant-in-chief of a certain plot of land,filed a suit under section 180, u. p. tenancy act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenancy act') for the ejectment of the third respondent on the ground that he was a trespasser. on 11-5-1951, the petitioner obtained a decree, and thereafter in execution of his decree he recovered possession of the plot. the third respondent appealed, but before his appeal could be heard a vesting order to take effect from 1-7-1952, was made under section 4, u. p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' or 'the zamindari abolition act') which came into force on 26-1-1951.3. the act abolished the zamindari system and made far reaching changes in the system of land tenure. under section 20 those persons who on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, that is on 30-6-1952, were 'inter alia' recorded as occupants of any land (other than grove land or land to which section 16 applied) in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli were to be called 'adhivasis' and were, subject to the provisions of the act, entitled to take or retain possession of such land.4. the third respondent was so recorded as occupant of the plot in suit, and on 9-5-1953, the commissioner allowed his appeal on the ground that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1955 (HC)

Mahabir Prasad Vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-01-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All501

orderbrij mohan lall, j. 1. one of the shops on the ground floor of house no. 40/-1, parade, kanpur, fell vacant in the first week of june 1951. several persons including mahabir prasad (petitioner) and bansidhar (opposite party no. 3) were desirous of taking the shop on rent. they applied for allotment to the rent control and eviction officer who, according to the common case of the parties, is a person autnorised by the district magistrate to perform his functions under the rent control and eviction act (3 of 1947), and is, therefore, a 'district magistrate' within the meaning of the term as defined in section 2 (d) of the act. the kent control and eviction officer allotted the shop in question to the petitioner on 14-6-51, bansidhar, however, managed to occupy the shop. this occupation was obviously unauthorized. 2. the rent control and eviction officer took steps under section 7a of the. act and passed an order for bansidhar's eviction. the latter went up in revision to the commissioner, allahabad-cum-jhansi division but the latter by his order dated 4-10-1952 dismissed the said revision. 3. having failed before the executive authorities, bansidhar turned to civil courts and instituted a suit against the petitioner for an injunction restraining aim from taking possession. he obtained a temporary injunction to that effect, but the suit was ultimately dismissed and the injunction was discharged. bansidhar preferred an appeal and sought an injunction from the district judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //