Allahabad Court August 1906 Judgments
Janki Prasad and anr. Vs. Achhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All66
Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs respondents claimed a decree for possession of amongst other cultivatory lands, a moiety of land situate in mauza Dunetia in the district of Muttra, of which they complained that they had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of one Nawal Kishore and are closely related, and the claim is based upon an agreement of the 16th of may 1894 under which the property of which they were joint owners was divided. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, Act No. II of 1901. On appeal the learned District Judge modified the decree of the Court below and gave a decree to the plaintiffs for possession as mortgagees of one-half of the holdings in mauza Dunetia. Of those holdings the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Khair-ud-dIn HusaIn Vs. Bhaddar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All133
Rustomjee, J.1. The facts in this case arose as follows. Defendant No. 1 had obtained a decree against the father of defendant No. 2, a minor. Under this decree certain houses, situated in mohalla Daraganj of the city of Allahabad, were attached and advertised for sale, with their site, for the 17th September, 1904. Upon this the plaintiff, who is entered in the Government papers as zamindar of the land on which the houses were built, brought a suit for a declaratory decree that he was the owner and possessor of the houses in question, and that they were not liable to be sold in execution of that decree. He further prayed that, in case of the sale of the materials of the houses being allowed, he should be declared entitled to dhik at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent, on the sale proceeds. He relied mainly on a condition which was entered in his wajib-ul-arz (record of rights); this is set out in extenso in paragraph 6 of the plaint and runs as follows: 'No tenant can build a new house witho...
Tag this Judgment!Banmali Pande Vs. Bisheshar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All129
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The subject matter of the suit out of which this second appeal arises is the interest of an occupancy tenant, and the question which we have to decide is whether the holder of a subsequent usufructuary mortgage which purports to have been created over the interest of an occupancy tenant can sue for redemption of a prior usufructuary mortgagee who claims to hold a similar mortgage over the same holding. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in favour of the subsequent mortgage. The lower appellate Court held that the mortgage under which the plaintiff claimed was invalid and unlawful, that the plaintiff had acquired no rights in respect of the 'mortgage laud sought to be redeemed' and was in no way entitled to claim 'redemption' under the Transfer of Property Act. It accordingly dismissed his suit. Three pleas are taken in appeal--the first is that the' mortgage' is not absolutely void, but is voidable as against the landlord; the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishore Vs. Durga Charan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All71
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff appellant during the course of the hearing of this appeal abandoned his claim to the grove, portion of the property sought to be recovered in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. It has been found by the lower appellate Court upon an issue remanded to it by this Court that the ruined house in kasba Kirakat, also claimed in the suit, was not self-acquired property of Sheobakhsh Rai, and the claim to this house therefore clearly fails. The only property therefore now in dispute between the parties is a 6 anna 8 pie share in kasba Kirakat khas and a 6 anna 8 pie share in Chak kasba. These two shares had been the self-acquired property of Sheobaksh Rai, the husband of Musammat Sheobarna Kunwar. He died childless many years ago leaving his widow him surviving. At time of his death his presumptive heirs were his two nephews Rameshar Dayal and Sheoambar Lal, sons of his uncle Bhairo Dat. The defendant Durga Charan Lal is the gran...
Tag this Judgment!Bidhi Chand Vs. Kundan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All64
Aikman, J.1. The plaintiff, who is respondent here, obtained from the lower appellate Court an injunction directing the appellants to close a certain door, which had been opened by them on the ground that it interfered with the plaintiff's privacy. The defendants come here in second appeal. The only plea urged before me is that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit as it was not shown that he was the owner of the house, the privacy of which was interfered with. In support of this plea reference is made to the case--Gokul Prasad v. Radho (1888) I.L.R., 10 All., 358. It is true that at page 387 of the judgment in that case, it is said that an owner of a house has a good cause of action where there is substantial interference with the right of privacy. But I cannot take this as deciding that the owner only has a good cause of action in such a case. There is no reason why a lessee, or other person who is in lawful possession of premises, may not maintain an action if his right of priva...
Tag this Judgment!Liakat HusaIn Vs. Rashid-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All125
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The member of the family of Sheikh Nazir-ud-din were the co-sharers in a six pie share in patti Nanku Singh, mauza Gauhari. In the years 1903 and 1904 they sold their shares to the defendant, Abdul Hamid, in seven different sale transactions. These sales were carried out by seven sale-deeds. To two of these sale-deeds alone were the defendants respondents, Rashid-ud-din and Mukhtar Ahmad, parties. These co-plaintiffs owned shares in the patti which were not conveyed by them to Abdul Hamid, and they continued to hold these shares. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted on the 24th of September 1904, by the plaintiff appellant, Liakat Husain, who is also a co-sharer in the village, to pre-empt the sales so carried out in favour of Abdul Hamid who was a stranger to the coparcenary body. Before, however, the suit was instituted, namely, on the 16th of September 1904, Abdul Hamid sold and conveyed all the property he had so purchas...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muhammad Abdul Hal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All61
George Knox, J.1. On the 15th of May 1906 the Collector and Magistrate of Bijnor directed a Deputy Magistrate subordinate to him to charge a certain pleader under Section 14 with improper conduct and to adjudicate on the charge. The improper conduct in another portion of the order is set out as consisting of tempting and enticing two subordinates of the Collector's office to act contrary to their duty in allowing him, the pleader, to examine the treasury account-book. The pleader concerned applied to this Court under 'Section 15 of the Indian High Courts' Act' and asked this Court to direct the Collector of Bijnor not to make any inquiry. The learned Counsel who appears for the pleader concerned contends that Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879, empowers Courts subordinate to this Court only to hold inquiry into case which fall within Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13 of the said Act. Clause (f) of the same section, which contains the words 'for any other reasonable cause,...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad and anr. Vs. Khuddo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All122
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: On the death of his father Gajadhar, his son, Ghurau, succeeded to the property which is the subject matter of this litigation. He died in the month of February 1904, leaving a widow, Musammat Thakur Dei, and a mother, Musammat Khuddo. The parties belong to the Kasodhan caste, and according to the custom of this caste a widow is entitled to re-marry. Musammat Thakur Dei did re-marry. She, on the 3rd of September 1904, transferred the interest which she derived from her husband in the property by gift to the plaintiffs. On the same day Musammat Khuddo sold the same property to Lachhman Prasad, defendant, second party, and he in his turn mortgaged the property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. The main contention in the Court below and before us was that Musammat Thakur Dei, by reason of her re-marriage, forfeited her interest in her husband's property under the provisions of Section 2 of Act XV of 1856. Ano...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Vs. Chhajju Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All109
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The litigation which has given rise to this appeal concerns the property which belonged to three brothers, namely, Dalpat Gir, Ganpat Gir and Dhanpat Gir, the sons of one Ram Gir. Dhanpat Gir died about the year 1895, leaving his brothers surviving him. Dalpat Gir died in the month of January 1902, leaving a widow, Musammat Beldevi. On the 26th of May 1902, Ganpat Gir died, leaving the defendant Musammat Ram Rakkhi, who is said to have been a mistress, and a son by her, namely, the defendant Chhajju Gir. The parties belong to the goshain community, and the plaintiff's case is that the property of a member of that community devolves upon his chela or disciple, and that according to custom the widow of a deceased goshain, in case her husband has no disciple at the time of his death, may nominate a disciple with the authority of the members of the community, and that the disciple so nominated succeeds to the property of her husband; that the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›