Allahabad Court April 1908 Judgments
Debi Prasad Vs. Sultan Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All324
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question which has been referred to us for determination in this case is whether or not Muhammadans are excluded from the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, Act No. IV of 1893.. This section prescribes that where a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family, being a share-holder, shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such share-holder. It is contended on the one hand that the words undivided family as used in this section mean a joint family and are confined to Hindus or to Muhammadans who have adopted the Hindu rule as to joint family property. On the other hand the contention is that the expression is of general application and means a family, whether Hindu, Muhammadan, Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mata Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All351
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. We think that the first plea taken in the petition of appeal must be sustained. The appellant was charged with three separate acts of criminal misappropriation committed within one year. He was also charged with having committed two separate offences of forgery. All these five offences were tried together at one and the same trial. The joint trial of these five offences cannot be supported by any provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The series of acts charged do not form the same transaction.2. We therefore set aside the conviction and order new trials on charges framed in accordance with law. The three acts of criminal misappropriation may form the subject of one trial. Evidence of forgeries may be given in support of the charges of misappropriation. If it is desired to try the accused for the forgeries that must form the subject of a separate trial....
Tag this Judgment!Hanwant Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All348
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. One Duma Singh brought a suit against the respondents for redemption of a mortgage. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance. Dunia Singh filed an appeal against the decree of the first Court, but died after filing the appeal. Within the time allowed bylaw, the appellants, who are admitted to be the sons of Dunia Singh's first cousin, applied to be brought on the record as appellants in place of the deceased Dunia Singh. The mortgagees, defendants respondents, disputed their right to be brought on the record, on the ground that, being of illegitimate birth, they were not the legal representatives of the deceased. A considerable number of witnesses were examined, and in the result the learned District Judge held that the appellants had been unable to successfully rebut the evidence adduced by the other side. He consequently dismissed their application. The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Judge. For the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuri Vs. Namnhi Jan and Karam Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All321
John Stanley, C.J. and Karamat Husein, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The defendant Karam Ali Khan had two wives, namely, Musammat Bhuri and Musammat Nannhi Jan. Musammat Nannhi Jan on the 4th August 1905 instituted a suit against her husband for the recovery of her dower, and on the 24th of November 1905 obtained a decree. On the 2nd of August 1905, that is, two days before the institution of Nannhi Jan's suit, Karam Ali Khan transferred to his wife Musammat Bhuri certain property ostensibly in satisfaction of a portion of her dower debt. Musammat Nannhi Jan proceeded to execute her decree and attached the property which was transferred to Musammat Bhuri. Thereupon Musammat Bhuri filed an objection, but her objection was disallowed, and thereupon she instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The first Court dismissed the suit, but upon appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Vs. Ganga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All331
John Stanley, C.J. and Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit out of which this application for revision has arisen was brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of a house, of which, he alleged, he had been forcibly dispossessed by the defendant on the 10th of October 1905. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, as amended by Act No. XII of 1891, provides that 'if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property, otherwise than in due course of law, he or toy person claiming through him may by suit recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit,' and then follows the proviso that 'nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property, and to recover possession thereof.' The Limitation Act provides that such suit may be brought within six months from the date of the dispossession. It is found by the Court below that the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khalil Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All309
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for a review of the judgment passed by us in this case on 16th November 1905. In that judgment, which is reported in I. L. R., 28 All. 264, the following passage occurs;--' It is manifest that the intention was to transfer to the lady the right to enjoy the usufruct of the property for her life. This under the Muhammadan law would be what is known as an ariat, and therefore invalid.' It is said that we were wrong in saying in our judgment that an ariat is invalid and we are asked to expunge the word 'invalid' and substitute for it the word 'valid.' Strictly speaking, this application for review of judgment is not maintainable under Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the applicant was not aggrieved by the decree or order passed in the case, but as the expression 'therefore invalid' may lead persons to think that in our opinion a grant known as an ariat in Muhammadan law is invalid, we think the matter should be considered by us. Speaking ...
Tag this Judgment!SamIn Hasan Vs. Piran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All319
William Burkitt and Aikman, JJ. 1. The appellant brought a suit against the respondent claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant pleaded that the complaint which he had lodged in the Criminal Court was true. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff had failed to show that the complaint was groundless. The plaintiff appealed. The learned District Judge sent for the record, and, after hearing the appellant's pleader, dismissed the appeal summarily under Section 551 of the Code of Civil Procedure, giving brief reasons for doing so and coming to the conclusion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the suit. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal.2. It is urged that the judgment of the lower appellate Court does not comply with the requirements of Section 574 of the Code. The learned advocate for the appellant relies on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rami Delta v. Brojo Naik Saikia (1897) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 97...
Tag this Judgment!Man Mohan and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All256
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. The appellants obtained a decree for foreclosure against one Phul Singh, who is father of some of the respondents and grandfather of the others. It is found that, although the appellants had notice of the interests of the sons and grandsons, they did not implead them in the suit for foreclosure. The respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal arises asking to be given an opportunity to redeem the mortgage. They did not dispute their liability to satisfy the debt incurred by the mortgagor. The Court of first instance held that the suit was not maintainable. On appeal the learned District Judge held that it was, and sent the case back for decision on the merits. The present appeal has been preferred against this order of remand.2. It is contended that we ought to apply to this case the principle of the ruling of the Full Bench in Debi Singh v. Jia Ram (1902) I.L.R. 25 All. 214. That was a case in which the sons of a Hindu father sued to get back...
Tag this Judgment!Maqbul-un-nissa Begam Vs. Abdul Karim Khan and Muhammad Raza Khan and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All315
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, one of the two heirs of Musammat Kadri Begam, the deceased wife of the defendant, for her share of the deferred dower of Musammat Qadri Begam, which became due on her death. The Court below decreed the plaintiff's claim. Of the grounds of appeal only two were pressed before us, one being that the suit was barred by limitation and the other that without the production of a succession certificate the Court below was not justified in passing a decree.2. As regards the question of limitation the allegation of the defendant is that Qadri Begam died on the 16th of September 1902, whereas the plaintiff says that she died on the 19th of that month. If she died on the earlier date, the suit, which was not instituted until the 18th of September 1905, is barred. We have carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses who were examined for the respective parties. This evidence is very conflic...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Prasad and ors. Vs. Munna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All329
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We have given most careful consideration to the arguments addressed to us by the learned pleaders for the respective parties and have perused the judgment of the learned District Judge and also the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court. It is found that the plaintiffs are co-sharers in resumed muafi land, a portion of which is the subject matter of the sale sought to be pre-empted. This resumed muafi is included in khewat No. 3, in which the plaintiffs are' co-sharers, whilst the defendant vendee Munna Lal is not a co sharer in khewat No. 3, bus is a co-sharer in khewat No. 5, with which the land in dispute is not connected, except in the fact that both khewats are recorded as appertaining to the same mahal. The provision of the wajib-ul-arz is that if from among the malikan any co-sharer wishes to sell his haqqiat, he will first sell the same to a co-sharer in the property (shariq haqqiat), and in case the latter refuses to purchase t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »