Allahabad Court March 1907 Judgments
Hardeo and anr. Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All418
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decree of one of our colleagues sitting singly, confirming a decree of the Munsif of Agra, which was upheld by the Subordinate Judge of that district. The facts are shortly as follows:2. The appellant, who resides in Calcutta, obtained a decree in the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, upon a promissory note against the respondents. This decree was transferred to Agra for execution. The respondents then instituted a suit in the Munsif's Court at Agra, where they reside, to have the decree obtained in Calcutta set aside on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The only prayer for relief was that 'the decree No. 8833, of 1902, passed by the Small Cause Court Judge in Calcutta on the 21st of June 1902, in favour of the defendant and which the defendant obtained by fraud, may be set aside (mansukh) and declared to be void.' No other relief whatever was sought. This fact must be kept in view. Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Ganga Bakhsh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All415
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on two mortgages, dated respectively the 31st of May, 1885, and the 10th of January 1890, executed by Nath Bakhsh Singh in favour of the plaintiffs Ganga Prasad and Thakur Prasad, One of the defendants, Bindhachal Shukul, pleaded that, before the execution of the mortgages, decrees had been put into execution against the mortgagor and the property placed under the management of the Collector, and that consequently Section 325A of the Code of Civil Procedure was a bar to the execution by the mortgagors of the two mortgages sued on, The Court below held that the provisions of this section barred the claim in respect of the mortgage of 1885, but held that the mortgage of 1890 was valid, inasmuch as that mortgage was executed after the property had ceased to be under the management of the Collector. This appeal has been preferred against this decree so far as it dismissed the claim under the mortgage of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Shankar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All385
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question before us was referred to a Full Bench on the ground of its importance, and is whether a sub-mortgagee of mortgagee rights is entitled to a decree for sale of those rights. I understand this to be whether, when a mortgagee has sub-mortgaged his interest in the property mortgaged to him to a sub-mortgagee, the sub-mortgagee is entitled to sell the interest in the property of his sub-mortgagor without impleading the mortgagor and foreclosing his equity of redemption; whether in fact the interest in the property mortgaged which has passed to the sub-mortgagee can be sold, leaving the equity of redemption outstanding in the mortgager.2. Before I deal with this question it may be well to ascertain what is the nature of a mortgage and sub-mortgage as usually met with in these Provinces. 'We rarely come across a mortgage in the English form, namely, a mortgage by way of conveyance of his land by the mortgagor to the mortgagee with a proviso that on repayment ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kehri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All434
George Knox, J.1. This case has been submitted by the Sessions Court of Aligarh for confirmation of sentence of death passed upon Kehri, Aheria, and two brothers, Bansidhar and Kanhaia Lal. We have also to consider appeals filed by all three convicts and all three are represented in Court by the same learned vakils. The learned Judge has considered the case in a very long and elaborate judgment, and I do not propose to go into the facts at any great length except as they bear upon the real issue which was raised in appeal before us.2. The fact that Ghafur Bakhsh, a printer and publisher at Agra, and his manager, Muhammad Ayub, were murdered on the 13th of April 1906, is not denied and is abundantly proved. The questions which I have really to consider are, first whether Kehri was or was not one of the persons who murdered Ghafur Bakhsh and Muhammad Ayub; secondly, whether Bansidhar and Kanhaia Lal, either or both of them, instigated Kehri to commit the murder above mentioned. I think i...
Tag this Judgment!Hasib-ul-nissa Vs. Ghafur-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All382
John Stanley, C.J., Banerji and William Burkitt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption which was instituted on the 18th of April 1905. The sale which is sought to be pre-empted took place on the 18th of April 1904, so that the plaintiff left it to the lust day available to him for bringing the suit. The valuation for the purpose of court fee was estimated at five limes the revenue, the plaintiff being under the impression that the case fell under sub-division (b) of Sub-section v of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, Act No. VII of 1870. At the hearing an objection was taken as to the court fee and the Munsif determined this objection in favour of the objector, holding that there was a deficiency, us the court fees ought to have been estimated under subdivision (d) of the section to which we have referred and not under sub-division (b), namely, at the market value of the land, The deficiency was ordered to be made good by the 19th of August 1905, and this was done and th...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Madhuban Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All535
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. At the hearing of this appeal a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of Lachhman Das respondent to the effect that the appeal abated. It was contended from the papers on the record that Narain Das, one of the respondents to this appeal, had died on some date before the 30th of May 1906 and that the application to bring Lachhman Das and Ram Das on the record as representatives of Narain Das, deceased, had not been made within the six months proscribed. In answer to this the learned vakil for the appellants draws our attention to the Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court--Susya Pillai v. Aiyakannu Pillai (1906) I.L.R., 29 Mad., 529--and argued that Article 175C of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to appeals from appellate decrees. The article which he wishes us to apply is Article 178 of the Limitation Act. There is no doubt that the view taken by the Madras High. Court supports the contention raised here, but, with all the respect due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Sahai Vs. the Maharaja of Jaipur and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All379
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen sued the appellant, the Maharaja of Jaipur, as also the representatives of his late agent Captain Man Singh, to recover arrears of pay alleged to be due to him as His Highness' agent. The plaintiff in his plaint says that Captain Man Singh, who was the manager of the Maharaja, on the 13th of: January 1895 appointed him agent at a salary of Re. 130 per month to look after the legal work of the temple at Bindraban which belongs to the appellant. His Highness the Maharaja filed a defence to the suit, and amongst other pleas averred that the suit could not be brought against him according to law, and that the Government of India could not grant sanction under Section 433 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the institution of a suit for money against his state. The defence of His Highness was struck out under Section 136 of the Code on the ground that he had not complied with certain di...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sumer Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All375
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of a Bench of Magistrates convicting the applicant under Section 41, Sub-section (3) of the Water 'Works Act, No. I of 1891, and sentencing him to a fine. The application has been made on the ground that the order is not warranted by law.2. Section 41, Sub-section (1) of the Act provides, among other things, that 'when any house which has been vacant is reoccupied, the owner shall, within fifteen days give notice thereof in writing to the Municipal Board. And by Sub-section (3) any person failing to give the notice is punishable with fine. The applicant has been convicted of having omitted to give notice of the reoccupation of his house as required by the section. It was alleged on his behalf that he had paid the rates for the period during which the house remained unoccupied, and it is contended that the section does not apply to such a person.3. Having regard to the scope and object of Chapter VII of the Act, this cont...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Benares Vs. Nand Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All431
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of instalments payable under a bond given to him by the defendants. The plaintiff gave a lease to the defendants of certain property for a term of 14 years, namely, from 1305 to 1319 Fasli. At the date of the deed there wore arrears of rent due by the tenants, and the defendants agreed to pay the amount of these arrears, and executed a bond for the same, payable in instalments. The instalments payable for the years 1305 and 1306 were paid, but not upon the dates fixed for payment, but thereafter. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was then instituted by the plaintiff for the instalments for the years 1307--1309 Fasli. His claim was met by the defence that the first instalment was not paid when it fell due, namely, on the 4th of June 1898, and that consequently under the provisions of the bond all the instalments became forthwith due and payable, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Debi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All377
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this reference arises are as follows: The native police of Alipur, a Native State, suspecting one Paran Singh of theft, searched his house in British India, arrested him in British India, and handed him over to the custody of one Debi, chaukidar of Gedo, a place situated in British India. Debi permitted Paran Singh to escape. He was thereupon charged under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, that being a public servant he was bound as such public servant to keep Paran Singh in confinement, Paran Singh being a person charged with, or convicted of, an offence, or lawfully committed to custody. Now Paran Singh had neither been charged with, nor convicted of any offence. The question is--was he lawfully committed to custody? He had been arrested by the Native State Police in British territory, and it is quite clear that they had no right to arrest him there. The Magistrate in his explanation says that the chaukidar Debi was a police officer, and unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »