Allahabad Court February 1902 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Kadhu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All298
Blair, J.1. I do not see any reason to interfere. It is one of those cases arising out of one of those wretched little village squabbles, which should be disposed of by the Magistrate, but which both parties prefer to dispose of by lathis. These present applicants went prepared for a fight. They knew that there were other persons who claimed right and title in these trees. They thought to steal a march on them. They knew very well that there was a probability that they would be met by force. They cut down one tree in dispute, then they proceeded to cut down another. From the point of view of their opponents they were doing an act either of theft or mischief. In doing so they knew what they had to expect. They went prepared to fight, and they did fight. They have been punished, and rightly punished too. It is not a case where a man has been in actual exclusive possession of the land, in which case the presumptions of law are all in his favour; there is no such possession in this case. T...
Tag this Judgment!Chabeli Ram Vs. Tej Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All342
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. To the suit out of which this appeal, has arisen the original parties were Mewa Ram, plaintiff, and Tej Singh and others, defendants. The suit was decreed ex parte. An application, however, was made under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the case reheard. This application was successful. Upon the suit being reinstated the present respondent, Chabeli Ram, prayed that his name might be brought on the record, alleging that an assignment had been made in his favour by the plaintiff of the plaintiff's right. The plaintiff consented to Chabeli Ram's name being substituted instead of his own. The defendants, on the other hand, objected, contending that the transfer was a fictitious one; the application under Section 372 was accordingly disallowed, and on the same day, but after the order above-mentioned had been passed, the suit was dismissed. Chabeli Ram then appealed from the order rejecting the application made unde...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal Husen and ors. Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All294
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. The quarrel out of which the suit is said to have arisen, which led up to the present appeal, is thus stated in the pleadings. The plaintiffs, who are here respondents, say that the defendants began to pick lac off certain pipal trees. Upon the plaintiffs' servants interfering, the defendants, here appellants, maintained that the trees belonged to them, and the plaintiffs had no right, title or claim, whatsoever in the wall and the trees. The Subordinate Judge went into the whole matter in a very lengthy judgment. Part of the obscurity of the case is perhaps due to the very length of the judgment. His findings, however (he was the Court of first appeal), were to the effect that the wall belonged to the garden, which was admittedly the plaintiffs' property, that the trees were in the garden wall, and. that the defendants had not proved any act of adverse possession of any kind. It was unfortunate that the learned Subordinate Judge had not apparently the courage to ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Jaunpur Vs. Bithal Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All291
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The sole question which arises in this appeal is whether the application of the appellant was one under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and should have been adjudicated upon by the Court below under that section The respondents obtained a simple decree for money against one Raja Hari Har Dat Dube, and in execution thereof caused certain property to be attached as the property of the Raja. Hari Har Dat Dube died during the pendency of execution proceedings, and his brother, Raja Shaukar Dat Dube, whose estate is now represented by the appellant, was brought on the record as his legal representative. On the 4th of April, 1892, he preferred an objection-respecting the application for the sale of the attached property, on the ground that the property sought to be sold belonged to him, and did not form a part of the assets left by Raja Hari Har Dat Dube. That objection was disallowed by the Court below on the 6th of September, 1892. On the 20th of March...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Prasad and anr. Vs. Sadiq Husen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All288
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly dismissing plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. It is unnecessary that we should set out the facts of this case at length; they will be found fully detailed in the reported case of Sadiq Husain v. Lalta Prasad (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 139 of which this case is a sequel.3. Suffice it to say that in that case the present appellants failed in their attempt to have execution of the decree of Her late Majesty in Council against Sadiq Husen, the respondent here. It was in that case held by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, that as Sadiq Husen was no party to the decree made by Her late Majesty in Council, that decree could not be executed against him. Being thus foiled in their attempt to proceed against the respondent by way of execution, the appellants have had recourse Do this regular suit, by which they seek to recover from him Rs. 4,820-13, the amount of the costs ...
Tag this Judgment!Kameshar Nath and anr. Vs. Sheoraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All282
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh disallowing the objections of Raja Sheoraj Singh to the execution of a decree recovered by the respondent against the late Raja Shankar Singh, the father of Raja Sheoraj Singh. A number of proceedings in execution of this decree were taken, which it is unnecessary to state in detail. Suffice it to give the following particulars: On the 31st of January, 1890, the first application for execution was made, and two villages were attached in execution. Raja Shankar Singh died on the 24th of August, 1891 and the names of his sons, Raja Sheoraj Singh and Raja Maharaj Singh, were substituted as his legal representatives. On the 2nd of April, 1892, an arrangement was come to between the decree-holders and Raja Sheoraj Singh, whereby it was agreed that the amount of the decree should be paid off by six instalments, and that in default of payment of any instalment the execution proceedings sh...
Tag this Judgment!Hamid Ali and anr. Vs. Mujawar HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All257
Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of Allahabad, dated September 19th, 1898, by which he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2.The reliefs asked for by the plaintiffs in the prayer to their plaint were--(1) for the removal of the first-named defendant, Mujawar Ali, from the office of mutawalli of certain property detailed in the plaint, which the plaintiffs alleged to be waqf or endowed property; (2) for a declaration that that property was not saleable in execution of a decree obtained by the second defendant, Musammat Dhan Devi, that the sale of that property and its purchase at the execution sale by Musammat Dhan Devi was null and that her possession was unlawful.3. The first defendant did not appear to defend the suit. The second defendant denied that the property in suit was waqf, and also pleaded that on the death of Faiyaz Husain Khan, father of the first defendant, the alleged waqif, the property was recorded by the Revenue authorities in the name...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All254
John Stanley, C.J.1. There are no grounds for this application, Gulzari Lal was tried and convicted of the embezzlement of suing of money amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 37-3-6, moneys paid to him as patwari of a certain village by the tenants Under the Court of Wards, and which he represented that he had authority to collect. In the charge the aggregate amount of the items is slated, and, in addition to that, the particulars giving the dates and the amounts of three payments are also stated. It is to be observed that the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed within the period of one year, and therefore the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply. This sub-section is in the following terms: 'When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the...
Tag this Judgment!Dhapo Vs. Bansi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All242
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a degree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, passed in favour of the plaintiff in a suit brought for recovery of certain zamindari property, and also of a sum of money. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The property in dispute belonged to one Ishk Lal, the father of the plaintiff, Musammat Dhapo. Ishk Lal died in the year 1881, leaving a widow, Musammat Sharna, surviving him, and also two daughters--one a married daughter Jai Dei, and the other the plaintiff, who was unmarried. Musammat Shama died on the 13th of March, 1886, and after her death the defendant, Kamji Lal, who was a brother of Ishk Lal, and Danlat Rani, who was a first cousin of Eamji Lal and father of the defendants Bansi Lal, Shitab Rai, Mul Chand, Tota Bam and Pirbhu Lal, took possession of the property in dispute. Shortly afterwards, in the year 1889, Jai Dei instituted a suit on behalf of herself and the plaintiff against Ramji Lal and Daulat Ram for ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Ram and anr. Vs. Mathura Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All239
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur, remanding a case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur for determination upon the merits. The suit was brought for cancellation of a sale deed executed in favour of the appellant Mathura Das, upon a sale had in execution of a decree obtained by two persons, Baij Nath and Dilsukh, against the present appellant. The allegation of the plaintiffs in the suit is, that the sale was fraudulent, the same having been brought about collusively between the parties after the decree had been satisfied. The learned Officiating Subordinate Judge, in a carefully-considered judgment, held that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he accordingly dismissed the suit. He also on an application made to him to treat the suit as equivalent to an application under Section...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›