Allahabad Court May 1908 Judgments
Nihal Kunwar Vs. Gendo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All464
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 634-7-0 and interest, which is alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the ancestors of the defendant in satisfaction of the balance due on a decree held by them, and which was not so applied. The facts leading up to it are these. On the 18th of February 1902, Ram Prasad and Tulshi Ram, the ancestors of the defendant, brought a suit against the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,020 due on a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The suit was compromised on the 19th of March 1902, the provisions of the compromise being that on payment of the sum of Rs. 1,750 by the mortgagor without interest, within a year, the suit should not be pressed, but in default of payment of that amount the mortgagees were to be at liberty to obtain an order absolute under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff in the present suit deposited a sum of Rs. 1,750 on the 20th of March 1903, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All377
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government from an appellate judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra. The accused was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class of an offence under Section 48 of Act No. XII of 1896. He was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by the Section and to a fine of Rs. 40. On appeal the conviction and sentence were set aside by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra on the ground that under Section 57 of the Act no Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a complaint or report of an Excise Officer. According to the evidence for the prosecution the accused was arrested with eighteen tolas of charas in his possession by a police constable and a head constable. They through, their official superior brought the case for trial before the Magistrate. The learned Judge held that the police could not institute the proceedings, and that they could only be instituted by an E...
Tag this Judgment!Ummi Begam Vs. Kesho Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All462
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The appellant is the daughter of one Mahmud Husain, who was a lunatic. She brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of her share of the site of a house now in the possession of the defendant. Mahmud Husain, as we have said above, was a lunatic, On the 22nd of June 1867 his wife and mother executed a sale deed in respect of the land now in suit. The purchaser under that sale sold his rights to the defendant's father on the 19th of May 1877. After his purchase a house was built by the purchaser on the land, and it is alleged that the house is of considerable value. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff on the last day of the expiry of limitation calculated from the date of the lunatic's death. The Court below has found that the sale was effected by the mother and wife of the lunatic as his de facto guardians, and that the sale was for the benefit of the lunatic, debts due by him having been discharged with the procee...
Tag this Judgment!Jagardeo Singh Vs. Phuljhari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All375
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The Court below hag dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Article 91 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether that article governs the suit. The plaintiff's case was that he and his nephew Ramdeo executed a sale deed of certain zarnindari property in favour of the defendant Musammat Phuljhari on the 27th of June 1899; that the sale was a fictitious transaction and was never given effect to; that it was agreed that Musammat Phuljhari should execute a deed of relinquishment; that a deed was drawn up and signed by her, but she refused to have it registered, and that an application for the registration of the deed made by the plaintiff to the District Registrar was refused. The plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit for a decree directing the registration of the deed of relinquishment. This part of the claim was subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Das Vs. Ram Ratan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All460
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage bond of the 31st August 1902, executed by one Gendan Lal, who is said to have been the manager of a joint Hindu family, of which Ram Ratan, his nephew, and several others were members. It appears that Ram Ratan brought a suit against his uncle, Gendan Lal, and obtained a decree, and in order to provide money for the satisfaction of this decree, in connection with which Gendan Lal was imprisoned, Gendan Lal, purporting to act as manager of the joint family, executed the mortgage in suit. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim, and this decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Ram Ratan now appeals to this Court, and his case is that he, though a member of the joint family at the time when the bond was executed, was in no way liable to pay Gendan Lal's debt, which was owing to him-self, and that his share in the joint family property is not liable to be sold in execution of a decree on the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Anant Singh and anr. Vs. Shankar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All369
John Stanley, C.J. and Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of this case are these. The plaintiffs are the owners of a share of a village called Chingauri in the district of Mirzapur. On the 16th of June, 1900, they executed a lease of this property in favour of the defendant Raghunath Singh for a term extending from 1308 to 1314 Fasli at an annual rent of Rs. 395. Subsequently, on the 12th of April, 1904, the plaintiffs executed another lease of the same property in favour of the defendant Shankar Singh for a term extending from 1312 to 1320 Fasli at the same rent, namely, Rs. 395. Under this lease Shankar Singh was authorized to realise the rent from the defendant Raghunath Singh. This was what is known as a concurrent lease. Shankar Singh failed to pay the rent for the years 1312--1313 Fasli; and hence the suit was brought out of which this appeal has arisen. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim, but upon appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bahadur Ali Vs. Ram Lal and Ismail Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All372
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal has arisen are as follows:One Ismail Khan on the 9th of December 1900, sold a share in the khalsa land of Bazidpur to Ram Lal. Bahadur Ali Khan brought a suit for pre-emption under the Muhammadan law, presumably under the Hanafi school. The vendee raised various defences. The Court of first instance, finding that the vendee Ram Lal was entitled to pre-empt under the wajib-ul-arz and that Bahadur Ali was entitled to pre-empt under the Muhammadan law, gave the latter a decree for half the property in suit on payment of half the price for which it had been sold. Both parties appealed. The learned District Judge coming to the conclusion that the custom of pre-emption recorded in the wajib-ul-arz superseded the rules of the Muhammadan law, and finding that Bahadur Ali was a near relation of the vendor, gave Bahadur Ali a decree for all the property in suit and dismissed the appeal of Ram Lal. Ram Lal has preferred this second ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pabitra Kunwar Vs. the Maharaja of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All367
John Stanley, C.J. and Karamat Husain, J.1. We think that the learned District Judge was wrong in, dismissing the plaintiff's suit without first giving her an opportunity -of examining all the witnesses whom she was prepared to examine before the Court of first instance. It appears that by reason of default of the defendant in complying with the order of the Court his defence was struck out and the suit was heard ex parte. Be-fore the plaintiff had examined all her witnesses the Munsif intimated that, inasmuch as the case was undefended, there was sufficient evidence already on the record, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the learned District Judge was not satisfied that the evidence on the record was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's claim. A representation was made to him that all the evidence which was available had not been produced by the plaintiff before the Munsif. In view of this we think that the learned District Judge ought not to have dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Bilas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All364
George Knox, J.1. The applicant in this case is one Ram Bilas. The said Ram Bilas is the owner of a firm which has a shop situate in Barauli Bazar in the district of Gorakhpur.2. According to an affidavit, dated the 9th of March 1908, and filed in these proceedings, Ram Bilas resides in the Jaipur State, and his firm at Barauli, known as the firm of Ram Karan Ram Bilas, is in the hands of managers.3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate being of opinion that a chabutra attached to the premises of Ram Karan Ram Bilas was an unlawful obstruction which should be removed from a road used by the public, issued a notice upon Ram Bilas calling upon him to appear and show cause why the obstruction should not be removed. This notice is dated the 17th of August 1907, and bears an endorsement which is said to be an endorsement by Makund Ram, mukhtaram of the firm of Ram Karan Ram Bilas. On the 16th of December 1907, an application was put in and signed by a vakil on behalf of Ram Karan Ram Bilas to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Himmat Bahadur and anr. Vs. Bhawani Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1908
Reported in: (2008)ILR30All352
Karamat Husain, J.1. Before stating the facts of the case I get forth the following pedigree. It will show the relation of the parties to the suit, with the exception of Musammat Bhawani Kunwar who is a transferee of Jiwan Sahai under the sale-deed of the 9th February 1892. The suit was instituted on the 14th December 1904. JIWAN SAHAI. | ---------------------------------- | | | Ram Sahai. Indar Sahai, Tirbeni Sahai. | Defendant (2). | | --------------------------------------------------- | | | | Raj Bahadur. Ram Bahadur = Shyam Bahadur, Dhum Bahadur, | Saraswati Kunwar. Defendant (3). | Madan Mohan, Dawand Bahadur, Defendant (5). Defendant (4). KHUSHWAKT RAI. | ------------------------------ | | Ishri Prasad. Khemanand. | | Sohan Lal. ------------------------------ | | | | | | Mithu Misri Chhote Jawahir Mulo Kunwar, = Nitanand, Lal. Lal. Lal. Lal. died 28-2-97. died De- | cember, | 1878. | -------------------- | |Naraini Kunwar. Saraswati Kunwar= died without issue Ram Bahadur, in 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›