Allahabad Court December 1907 Judgments
Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Ismdar Khan and ors. and Harib-ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All119
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal and the connected appeal No. 997 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Ahmad Husain for possession of 9 bighas and odd biswas of land, being three-fifths of 15 bighas and odd, and for mesne profits. The said land forms part of a larger quantity of land, which was the holding at fixed rates of one Rashida Bibi and was mortgaged by her under two mortgages, one executed in favour of Bahadur Ali and Saadat Beg and the other in favour of Aiyam-ud-din Khan. The mortgages were usufructuary and the mortgagees were put in possession. Rashida Bibi died, leaving as her heirs her daughters Najman Bibi and Rabuan Bibi, who sold their equity of redemption to the plaintiff Ahmad Husain and to the first defendant Ismdar Khan on the 21st of June 1877. The former was the purchaser of a three-fifths share and the latter of the remainder. Other transactions relating to the property took place subsequently, to which it is not necessary to refer for the purposes ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ahad and anr. Vs. Haidar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All117
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted by one Muhammad Naki. His suit was dismissed in the first Court, whereupon an appeal was filed by him, during the pendency of which he died leaving as his legal representatives, his widow, two sons and two daughters. The two sons applied to the Court to be brought upon the record as appellants, and they were so brought. Thereupon the defendants asked the Court to have the other representatives also brought upon the record. These representatives were served with notice of the application, but took no notice of it, and in view of their attitude the Court did not feel justified in adding them as appellants and declined to do so, directing that the hearing should proceed. It was obviously the duty of the two sons to apply to the Court; to have the other representatives brought on the record either as appellants or as respondents but they neglected to take any steps in this direct...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Anwar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All82
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The question for determination in this litigation is a novel one. One Sajjad Husain was the owner of certain property at or prior to the year 1898. On the 21st of September of that year be granted a lease to the defendant of portion of this property for a term of 10 years, that is, from 13065 to 1315 Fasli (inclusive). The lease contains a very unusual provision to the effect that if at any time during the currency of the lease, the lessor should demand any portion of the rent in advance from the lessee, the latter would be bound to pay it on obtaining a receipt. The lease was registered and is not disputed here. On the 25th of December 1902 a sum of Rs. 1,520 was paid in advance for rent by the lessee to the lessor on demand made by the lessor in pursuance of the provision in the lease to which we have referred. This payment, it is found, satisfied the rent payable up to the end of 1314 Fasli. On the 20th of October 1903 the plaintiff appel...
Tag this Judgment!Bahal Singh and anr. Vs. Mubarik-un-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All77
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal turns upon the meaning to be assigned to the expression ' shikmi' share-holders used in the wajib-ul-arz of village Kandhla in the Saharanpur judgeship. On the part of the appellant it is contended that the word ' shikmi ' denotes those who are more closely connected with the vendor in a thok and patti in which the property, the subject of the sale, is situate than proprietors in another patti of the same mahal who are not proprietors in such thole or patti. On the part of the respondents the contention is that the expression shikmi shareholders denotes share-holders born of the same shikam, that is, uterine brothers or blood relations. The property in dispute formed part of khewat Nos. 22 and 33, portion of a mahal of 15 biswas. The mahal is divided into seven pattis and the land in dispute is situate in patti Khail, thok Bhuria. It is admitted that the plaintiffs appellants are co-sharers ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadei Vs. Baldeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All75
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The decision of the learned Judge of this Court against which this appeal is preferred is wholly opposed to the principle laid down in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gobind Krishna Narain v. Khunni Lal (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 487. In that case the Court held, following earlier rulings and citing the leading case of Stapilton v. Stapilton (1739) 1 W. and T. 230, that a compromise made by a person holding a Hindu widow's or Hindu daughter's estate in the property of a deceased husband or father is not binding on the reversioners, even though it has been followed by a decree of Court, and that the reversioners can only be bound by a decree made after a full contest in a bond fide litigation. This case was not reported until the 20th of May 1907, and does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judge. The fact that the property-involved is of little value is a matter which cannot be taken into cons...
Tag this Judgment!Shafaqat Ullah Vs. Wali Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All116
George Knox, J.1. This is an application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking this Court to set aside an order passed by the District Magistrate of Bijnor under Section 203 of the Code and to pass an order for further inquiry. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application on the ground that the applicant could have applied to the Sessions Judge and has not done so. In support of the objection my attention has been called to the cases Emperor v. Kali Charan Weekly Notes 1904, p. 238 and Gullay v. Bakar Husain (1905) I.L.R. 28 All. 268. I agree with what my learned brother has said in Emperor v. Kali Charan. The only circumstance in this case which might remove it from the category of ordinary circumstances is that an application has been deliberately made to this Court and it would save unnecessary distress to the applicant to hear him now rather than to send him to get the relief he seeks from the Sessions Judge. I do not think that thi...
Tag this Judgment!Nur Muhammad and anr. Vs. Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All72
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is whether a claim for possession of property purchased by a decree-holder in execution of his own decree can be enforced by a separate suit, or whether such a suit is barred by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property of which possession is sought to be recovered falls a little short of a 4-anna undivided share of a certain village which was purchased by the decree-holders on the 20th of April 1895. That property is in the possession of the appellant Sheo Narain under a deed of gift from the widow of the judgment-debtor. No steps were taken by the purchaser to obtain possession until the month of February 1902, that is, nearly seven years after the date of the purchase, when he applied to the Court for possession under Section 318 of the Code. That application was rejected as being barred by limitation on the 1st of November 1902. 'The present suit was instituted in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board of Bulandshahr Vs. Dakkhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All70
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. The plaintiff, Dakkhan Lal, who is respondent to this second appeal, was the owner of a house which is situate in one of the inner lanes in the town of Bulandshahr. One end of the lane is closed, in other words the lane is a cul-de-sac. In front of his house he erected some cattle troughs and a thatched shed: Complaint was made by some of the residents of the mohalla living opposite the plaintiff's house. This complaint was made to the Municipal Board, and they served the plaintiff with a notice to remove the constructions which he had made, on the ground that they caused inconvenience to the people of the mohalla and also injuriously affected the sanitation of the place. The plaintiff filed objections, which were overruled by the Board, and he was ordered peremptorily to remove the troughs and the thatch. He failed to comply with this order, was prosecuted, admitted that he was wrong, was fined, and he himself pulled down the erections that he had made. H...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anant Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All66
George Knox, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut in an appeal pending before him entered in his judgment the following observation: 'All accused persons are of right entitled to be defended by a pleader and the definition of 'pleader' in the Criminal Procedure Code does not include mukhtars; special permission of the Court has to be obtained for the representation of an accused person by other than a pleader; but Magistrates seem to take it as a matter of course that mukhtars should appear. While this is so, the standard of morals in the Courts can never improve. I dismiss this appeal and order that a copy of this judgment be Bent to the District Magistrate for information.' Upon receipt of this the District Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar issued the following order: 'Mukhtars can appear under Section 4 (r) (1) only with the Court's permission. Draw all Courts' attention to this section.2. It is contended before as that both these orders, namely, the order of the Additional Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Pran Singh and ors. Vs. Meghan Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All63
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by two plaintiff's who alleged that the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 executed in their favour a usufructuary mortgage on the 4th of June 1893 and put them in possession of the mortgaged property; that the mortgagors subsequently executed another mortgage of the same property in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the 17th of July 1898, and that the subsequent) mortgagees dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs stated that they were father and son and formed a joint family, and that the mortgage was obtained in the name of one of them, who, it is admitted, was on the date of the mortgage a minor. The plaintiffs claimed possession of a portion of the mortgaged property from which they alleged they had been dispossessed and they also claimed damages. In the alternative they asked for a decree for the mortgage money. The suit was defended by the first three defendants, the subsequent mortgagees, who den...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »