Allahabad Court November 1908 Judgments
Mashuq Ali Khan Vs. Ayub Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All51
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. An occupancy holding was held jointly by two brothers, Yakub Ali Khan and Muzaffar Ali Khan. On the death of Muzaffar Ali Khan, which took place before the present Tenancy Act came into operation, the name of his widow, Mussammat Rasul-un-nissa, was recorded in his stead as joint occupancy tenant of the land. She died in 1902 after the new Tenancy Act came into force. Upon her death her step-brother Mashuq Ali Khan, plaintiff respondent, endeavoured to get his name entered in the revenue records in Her stead. The revenue authorities, however, entered the 'whole holding in the name of Ayub Ali Khan, the son of Yakub Ali Khan. Thereupon the plaintiff Mashuq Ali 'Khan brought a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his right to a moiety of the holding, for joint possession thereof, and also for damages. The Court of first instance threw out the suit as not cognizable by a Civil Court. On appeal the learned Additional Judge held that it was cognizable ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayub Ali Khan Vs. Mashuq Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.593
1. An occupancy holding was held jointly by two brothers, Yakub Ali Khan and Muzaffar Ali Khan. On the death of Muzaffar Ali Khan, which took place before the present Tenancy Act came into operation, the name of his widow, Musammat Rasul-un-nissa, was recorded in his stead as joint occupancy tenant of the land. She died in 1902 after the new Tenancy Act came into force. Upon her death her step-brother Mashuq Ali Khan, plaintiff respondent, endeavoured to got his name entered in the revenue records in her stead. The revenue authorities, however, entered the whole holding in the name of Ayub Ali Khan, the son of Yakub Ali Khan. Thereupon the plaintiff Mashuq Ali Khan brought a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his right to a moiety of the holding, for joint possession thereof, and also for damages. The Court of first instance threw out the suit as not cognisable by a Civil Court. On appeal the learned Additional Judge held that it was cognizable by the Civil Court and remanded t...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar Hasan Vs. Said Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All38
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. This application is connected with Criminal Revisions Nos. 220 and 221 of 1908.2. The facts are shortly a follows:Certain civil proceedings were proceeding in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was one by a Muhammadan lady for dower. In the course of the execution of a decree in that suit a compromise was filed on behalf of the lady by her vakil. The lady sent a complaint to the High Court, District Judge and the Subordinate Judge, alleging that the compromise had been filed contrary to her interest by her vakil in collusion with the other side. The Subordinate Judge apparently did not consider it necessary to take any steps as the result of the lady's communication. Her letter was unverified, and apparently not produced by a person duly authorized to produce it. The High Court sent the communication it received to the District Judge. The District Judge had the communication verified and sent it on to the Subordinate Judge for inquiry. It is quite ...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal and ors. Vs. Sagar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All49
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for partition of a rent free holding. Both the Courts below granted the plaintiff a decree. This appeal has been preferred by one of the defendants, Sagar Mal, and the only ground of appeal pressed before us is that in the case of a rent free grant, as of any other tenancy coming under the Agra Tenancy Act, a Civil or a Revenue Court is prohibited by Section 82, Clause (2), of the Act from entertaining a suit for partition. We are of opinion that this section does not apply to a rent free grantee. The section in question falls within Chapter II, which deals with the devolution, transfer and division of tenancies.' A tenant is defined in Section 4, Clause (5), and does not include a rent free grantee. A rent free grantee, as also a mortgagee of proprietary right, is by that definition expressly excluded. Consequently a rent free grant does not appear to us to be a 'holding' within the meaning of Section 32. The word ...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Mal Vs. Makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.705
1. This appeal arises in a suit for partition of a rent free holding. Both the Courts below granted the plaintiff a decree. This appeal has been preferred by one of the defendants, Sagar Mal, and the only ground of appeal pressed before us is that in the case of rent free grant, as of any other tenancy coming under the Agra Tenancy Act, a Civil or a Revenue Court is prohibited by Section 32, Clause (2), of the Act from entertaining a suit for partition. We are of opinion that this section does not apply to a rent free grantee. The section in question falls within Chapter II, which deals with 'the devolution, transfer and division of tenancies.' A tenant is defined in Section 4, Clause (5), and does not include a rent free grantee. A rent free grantee, as also a mortgagee of proprietary rights, is by that definition expressly excluded. Consequently a rent free grant does not appear to us to be a 'holding' within the meaning of Section 32. The word 'holding' in that section means, we thi...
Tag this Judgment!Chhadammi Lal Vs. Kanhai Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All48
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. One Chhadammi Lal applied to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. Sanction was refused by the Munsif. Chhadammi Lal then applied to the learned District Judge, who granted the sanction. The applicants have presented a petition which is headed as a 'Criminal Revision' against the order of the District Judge. It may be taken as decided by the Full Bench in Salig Ram v. Ramji Lal (1906) I.L.R. 28 All. 554 that this Court has no revisional powers on the criminal side to interfere with an order passed by a Civil Court granting sanction under the provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. We are bound by that ruling, and must therefore hold that we have no power of interference in revision. But it is contended that apart from the revisional powers conferred on this Court by Chapter XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have power under Section 195, Clause ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhai Lal and anr. Vs. Chadami Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.5
Aikman, J.1. One Chadami Lal applied to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute the present applicants for an offence punishable under Section 198, Indian Penal Code. Sanction was refused by the Munsif. Chadami Lal then applied to the learned District Judge, who granted the sanction. The applicants have presented a petition which is headed as criminal revision against the order of the District Judge. It may be taken as decided by the Pull Bench in Salig Ram v. Ramji Lal 28 A. 554, (F.R.); 3 Cr. L.J. 400, that this Court has no revisional powers on the criminal side to interfere with an order passed by a Civil Court granting sanction under the provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure. We are bound fey that ruling and must therefore hold that we have no power of interference in revision. But it is contended that apart from the revisional powers conferred on this Court by Chapter XXXII, Code of Criminal Procedure, we have power under Section 195, Clause 6, of that Code to revoke...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Sheo Ghulam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.704
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a share of certain zamindari property was not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained against a Hindu widow on foot of a mortgage executed by her. Musammat Raghubansa executed a mortgage in favour of the defendant Sheo Ghulam Singh and on foot of that mortgage Sheo Ghulam Singh obtained a decree for sale on the 1st of April 1905. After this date Musammat Ragbubansa died, and thereupon the appellants, who claimed to be the reversioners of the deceased owner, the husband of Musammat Raghubansa, were brought upon the record as the representatives of Musammat Raghubansa on an application under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act for an order absolute. They filed an objection to the sale on the ground that the mortgage was executed by Musammat Raghubansa without legal necessity. Their objection was disallowed, and thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed for a declaration that the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Mazhar Hasan Vs. Said Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.569
1. This application is connected with Criminal Revisions Nos. 220 and 221 of 1908.2. The facts are shortly as follows:Certain civil proceedings were proceeding in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was one by a Muhammadan lady for dower. In the course of the execution of a decree in that suit a compromise was filed on behalf of the lady by her Vakil. The lady sent a complaint to the High Court, District Judge and the Subordinate Judge, alleging that the compromise had been filed contrary to her interest by her Vakil in collusion with the other side. The Subordinate Judge apparently did not consider it necessary to take any steps as the result of the lady's communication. Her letter was unverified, and apparently not produced by a person duly authorized to produce it. The High Court sent the communication it received to the District Judge. The District Judge had the communication verified and sent it on to the Subordinate Judge for inquiry. It is quite possible that the Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Piari Lal Vs. Nand Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All19
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale of mortgaged property. It was dismissed under the following circumstances as barred by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that in the year 1880 the predecessors in title of some of the defendants and the other defendants executed a mortgage in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff. A suit was brought upon this mortgage on the 21st of September 1882, in which a sale of the mortgaged property was claimed. The suit was compromised on the terms that a simple money decree only should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and such, a decree was passed on the 27th of November 1882. The events which happened subsequent to the date of this compromise it is unnecessary for the purposes of the decision of this appeal to detail, suffice it to say that the amount due to the plaintiff on food of the compromise was not satisfied, or at least fully satisfied. Thereupon the suit out of which this...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »