Allahabad Court May 1907 Judgments
Hansraj Pal and Mukhraji Kunwar and ors. Vs. Dalpat Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All28
George Knox, A.C.J. and Richards, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of certain immovable property. After recovery of the decree the plaintiff sold a portion of the property to different persons reserving some portion of the property to himself. The respondents applied under Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that by the sale deed the decree had been transferred to them to the extent of the property mentioned in the sale deed, and that they were entitled to execute the decree. The Court to which the application was made refused the application. The present respondents appealed, with the result that the decision of the Court of the first instance was reversed, the Court holding that Section 232 did apply under the circumstances and respondents were entitled to execute the decree in the manner they asked, and remanded the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree-holder now appeals against the older of remand. He c...
Tag this Judgment!Genda and Rai Singh Vs. Sukh Nath Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All25
George Knox, A.C.J. and Richards, J.1. This was a suit to re-cover possession of land, and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had been his tenant, that the latter had been duly ejected and had retaken possession. The defendant pleaded that his possession was the possession of an owner, and that he was not and had never been the tenant of the plaintiff quoad the land in dispute. It appears that in a suit in the Revenue Court between the same parties the defendant had pleaded that he was a proprietor and not a tenant. The Assistant Collector on the 19th of January 1903 gave a decree for possession deciding the question of proprietary title himself against the defendant. There was an appeal to the Commissioner, who reversed the finding of the Assistant Collector. It is quite clear that if the Commissioner had any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, his decision is binding on...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari and anr. Vs. Sheobalak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All601
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for proprietary possession of plot No. 916 on the allegation that they and defendant were members of one family; that on a partition the plot in suit was assigned to the plaintiffs' share; that in July 1904 they applied for mutation of names in respect of this plot, but their application was rejected. The defendant pleaded his own title and also that the present suit was not maintainable, in view of the fact that on the 4th of November 1904 he had obtained a decree from a Revenue Court for the ejectment of the plaintiffs as his tenants of the plot in suit. It is found by the lower Court that in the ejectment suit the defendants did not plead their own title to the plot in suit, and in fact they did not oppose the suit for ejectment. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that as the plaintiffs omitted to set up their title in a former suit, they are now precluded from maintaining the suit. In second appeal it is strenuously contended on behalf of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Budh Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All598
Dillon, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Deputy Magistrate of Jalaun convicting the petitioner, one Budh Lal, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The facts out of which this conviction has arisen are briefly these: Three bales of cotton cloth had been consigned by a firm in Cawnpore to a shopkeeper at Jalaun, of which only two arrived at their destination. Goods consigned to Jalaun are conveyed on bullock carts starting from the railway station at Orai, and the case for the prosecution is that the missing bale was stolen while in transit from Orai to Jalaun on some date between the 14th and 29th December last. Acting upon information received the Police Sub-Inspector made a search in the house at Jalaun occupied by the petitioner, his father and his son. While proceeding with the search the Sub-Inspector asked to be allowed to go into a room, which was locked, and which had not...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Samad Vs. Grasiti Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All596
Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the effect that no appeal lies in this ease. For the purpose of determining this objection it is necessary to state the circumstances under which the appeal was filed. There was a decree against Musammat Ghasiti Bibi and others, in execution of which the property of the judgment debtors was sold by auction on the 21st of July 1906 and was purchased by the respondent Liaqat Husain. An application under Section 310 of the Code of Civil Procedure was presented by One Kallu, who described himself as the agent of two of the judgment-debtors, praying to have the sale set aside. The auction purchaser resisted this application, and the 15th of September 1906 was fixed for hearing. On that date the applicant did not appear, and consequently the application was rejected for default of appearance. On the 20th of September 1906 Ghasiti Bibi made an application to the Court asking for the restoration...
Tag this Judgment!Chittar Mal Vs. Maharaj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All22
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an interpleader suit brought under Section 471 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Collector of Etah, as Chairman of the Municipal Board at Kasganj, against the parties to this appeal. It appears that the Municipal Board of Kasganj had taken on rent a camping ground (parao) which belonged to Sheoraj Singh and his brother, Maharaj Singh, the present appellant. Chittar Mal, respondent, obtained a decree against Sheoraj Singh and in execution of it caused the parao to be sold by auction and purchased it himself. The rent for the year 1904-05 was not received either by Maharaj Singh or by Chittar Mal. The former claimed a half share in it, while the latter demanded the whole of it. Thereupon the Collector of Etah filed the present suit in order that it might be determined by the Court to whom the rent was to be paid. The Court directed the parties to the present appeal, who were defendants to the suit, to interplead one another, and in the end adju...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Ghulam HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All579
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. We are of opinion that this appeal must fail. On the 12th of April 1894 the plaintiff Ram Lal made over to the defendant Ghulam Husain a sum of Rs. 300 to be paid over to one Narotam The plaintiff took from Ghulam Husain a stamped receipt. The money was to be lent to Narotam on the security of a mortgage which Narotam had executed in plaintiff's favour live days previously. Ghulam Husain also executed in favour of the plaintiff a bond guaranteeing repayment by Narotam of this loan of Rs. 300. On the 23rd of February 1900 the plaintiff sued both Narotam and Ghulam Husain to recover this advance on the basis of the mortgage-deed and the security bond. The suit was ultimately dismissed as against both the defendants. In that suit it was found that Ghulam Husain had never handed over the Rs. 300 to Narotam. That suit was decided on the 15th of January 1901. On the first of December 1904, that is, nearly four years afterwards, the plaintiff brought the suit out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Parsiddhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All575
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This is an application for the revision of a judgment of a Magistrate of the first class convicting the three applicants of an offence punishable under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to two months' rigorous imprisonment each. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The following are the facts of the case. One Mahabir caught a man called Dukhi in the act of stealing his jack fruit. Mahabir arrested him and made him over to the village chaukidar for conveyance to the police station. When the chaukidar and Dukhi had gone a short distance, the accused, according to the evidence, followed them up from the village, seized hold of the chaukidar and made him release Dukhi, who ran off. The case for the applicants has been ably argued by the learned Counsel who appears on their behalf. After hearing him and the Assistant Government Advocate in support of the conviction we are of opinion that no suff...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharaja of Vizianagram Vs. Thamman Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All593
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent here, for possession of 8 plots of land, situated in the village of Saheli, which admittedly belongs to the plaintiff. This village was given in lease by the plaintiff to one Girish Chandra. The period of the lease was from 1297 to 1309 Fasli. The present suit was brought within two years of the expiry of the lease to eject the defendant, Thamman Pande, who is appellant here, from 8 plots of land situated in the village. The defendant's case was that he had purchased the plots on the 21st of September 1897 from one Piaj Umar, whom he alleged to be the owner of the plots. The defendant further contended that, if his vendor was not the true owner, a title by adverse possession had been acquired. The Munsif dismissed the suit as to two of the plots and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant from the remaining six plots. The defendant appealed and the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Babu and anr. Vs. Anjora Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All638
Aikman, J.1. The plaintiffs respondents sued to eject the appellant, a parda nishin lady, from a certain agricultural holding. A question of proprietary title was raised and decided by the Assistant Collector. Acting on the advice of his pleader the appellant's agent filed an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Collector in. the Court of the Commissioner. On the 3rd of April 1905, the Commissioner returned the appeal for presentation to the proper Court, holding that the appeal lay to the District Judge, The appeal was presented the same day to the District Judge. The District Judge rejected the appeal, refusing to consider what had occurred as sufficient cause for admitting the appeal under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Against that order the defendant has preferred this appeal. The case has been very ably argued before me by the learned vakils on both sides, who have cited all the authorities bearing on the point. No doubt in England erroneous advice on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »