Allahabad Court August 1908 Judgments
Lalta Prasad and anr. Vs. Jagar Nath Singh,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All21
Banerji, J.1. This and the connected First Appeal No. 118 of 1906 arise out of a suit brought by the respondents Lalta Prasad and Bhuaneshri Prasad for possession of a 2 anna 6 pie share of zamindari and for a declaration that a sale-deed, dated the 28th of June 1899, executed by them jointly with one Dwarka Prasad in respect of the said share, is null and void.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of Lala Madho Prasad, whose paternal uncle is the aforesaid Dwarka Prasad. After the death of Madho Prasad in 1882, Dwarka Prasad applied for and obtained in 1888 a certificate of guardianship of the persons and property of the plaintiffs who were minors at the date of their father's death. Madho Prasad and Dwarka Prasad jointly owned an 8 anna share in the village Kharaun, out of which Madho Prasad, in his life-time sold 2 annas 9 pies and Dwarka Prasad sold 2 annas 6 pies after Madho Prasad's death. The remaining 2 annas 9 pies was sold by the plaintiffs and Dwarka Prasad on the 28th of June 1899...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Khan and anr. Vs. Turaban
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.557
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' claim is barred by limitation. The suit is one for a declaratory decree. The plaintiffs asked for a declaration that they were entitled to the property mentioned in the plaint. In 1895 the name of the defendant was entered in the revenue papers in respect of this property and the title of the plaintiffs was denied. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs' cause of action for a declaratory suit accrued when this entry was made in 1895, and, as held by the Full Bench in Francis Legge v. Rambaran Singh 20 A. 35, six years limitation applies to the suit and must be computed from the year 1895. We think this view of the Court below is right. According to the Full Bench ruling referred to above, where the plaintiff is in possession and asks for a declaratory decree, the limitation applicable to the suit is that prescribed by Article 120 of schedule II to the Limitation Act, and should be computed from the date on which ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Lalta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.562
Banerji, J.1. This and the connected First Appeal No. 118 of 1906 arise out of a suit brought by the respondents Lalta Prasad and Bhuaneshri Prasad for possession of a 2 anna 6 pie share of zamindari and for a declaration that a sale-deed, dated the 28th of June 1899, executed by them jointly with one Dwarka Prasad in respect of the said share, is null and void.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of Lala Madho Prasad, whose paternal uncle is the aforesaid Dwarka Prasad. After the death of Madho Prasad in 1882, Dwarka Prasad applied for and obtained in 1888 a certificate of guardianship of the persons and property of the plaintiffs who were minors at the date of their father's death. Madho Prasad and Dwarka Prasad jointly owned an 8 anna share in the village Kharaun, out of which Madho Prasad in his life-time sold 2 annas 9 pies and Dwarka Prasad sold 2 annas 6 pies after Madho Prasad's death. The remaining 2 annas 9 pies was sold by the plaintiffs and Dwarka Prasad on the 28th of June 1899 ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhagwan DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All568
Richards and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. In this case Ram Prasad and Bhagwan Din have both been convicted under Sections 328 and 304, Indian Penal Code. Bhagwan Din has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under each section to run consecutively, Ram Prasad has been sentenced to four years under each section to run concurrently. Both Earn Prasad and Bhagwan Din have appealed. When the appeal came before Mr. Justice Knox he ordered that notice should go to the accused to show cause why they should not be convicted under Section 329 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences enhanced. The learned Judge was of opinion that the case did not fall under Section 304, Indian Penal Code. After the case had come up before a Bench of two Judges an appeal was instituted on behalf of the Government against the acquittal of the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The evidence has been most carefully dealt with in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, and we have not the sma...
Tag this Judgment!Kubra Jan Vs. Ram Bali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All560
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal has been laid before a Full Bench by reason of a conflict in the authorities upon a question raised in the appeal. The suit is one by the daughter of one Bande Ali to recover from her brother Akbar Husain and a number of other defendants, transferees from him, her share in the property of her deceased father. This property is situate in the district of Bareilly and also in the district of Bara Banki in Oudh. It appears that Akbar Husain transferred the Bareilly property to the defendants Nos. 2 to 8 and the Bara Banki property to persons from whom the defendant respondent Ram Bali acquired it by virtue of a decree for pre-emption. The suit in regard to the Bareilly property was compromised, with the result that the claim in respect of that property was abandoned, and the suit proceeded as regards the Bara Banki property only.2. The first Court decreed the suit. But upon appeal the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's s...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Rao Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All7; 1Ind.Cas.555a
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought on behalf of a minor for the avoidance of a sale-deed, executed by his certificated guardian. The plaint is the suit was tiled by a person who described himself as the next friend of the plaintiff. As he was not the certificated guardian, the Court ordered notice to issue to the certificated guardian as required by Section 440. This order was passed on an application made by the next friend who instituted the suit on behalf of the minor. Notice was served on the certificated guardian, but he showed no cause. The Court then proceeded to settle issues, and recorded some evidence, but no formal order was recorded granting leave to the new next friend to institute the suit. The case was transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, and before him an objection was taken to the effect that as no leave had been granted under Section 440, the suit was pot maintainable. This objection pr...
Tag this Judgment!Pachkauri Ram and ors. Vs. Nand Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All505
Karamat Husain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought for recovery of possession of a plot of land. The suit was referred to arbitration on the 4th of March 1907. The arbitrators submitted their award on the 2nd of April 1907. On the 11th of April 1907, objections were filed by the defendants. One of the objections was that one of the plaintiffs Pad died and that his heirs had not been brought on the record. The learned Munsif on the 20th of April 1907, set aside the award and sent back the case to the arbitrators for decision, giving them time up to the 4th of May 1907. He said: 'The arbitrators have submitted their award. It is objected to on the ground, inter alia, that one of the plaintiffs had died during the arbitration and before the award, hence the award is illegal. I am of opinion that this contention must prevail. The plaintiff Gopichand died two weeks before the 12th of April 1907. The arbitrators not only delivered and made the award on the 2nd of A...
Tag this Judgment!Jamma and anr. Vs. Ram Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All508
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff respondent, Ghansham Singh, who is the illegitimate and only son of one Mahtab Singh, deceased, by a concubine who had lived continuously with Mahtab Singh, is entitled to the occupancy holding of his father as a male lineal descendant within the meaning of that expression as used in Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The Courts below have rightly held that Mahtab Singh belonged to the Sudra caste.2. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff was so entitled. We think that their decision is right. In Inderun Valungypooly Taver v. Ramasawmy Pandia Talaver (1869) 13 Moo. I.A. 141 their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the illegitimate children of the Sudra caste, in default of legitimate children inherit their putative father's estate. In Sarasuti v. Mannu (1879) I.L.R. 2 All. 134 Pearson and Oldfield, JJ., held that the illegitimate offspring of a kept woman, or continuous concub...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Kunwar Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All549
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The title to the Landhaura estate, an extensive and valuable estate situate in the district of Saharanpur and other districts, is involved in this appeal. The plaintiff, who is the widow of the late Raja Raghubir Singh, seeks for a declaration that she had no power to adopt the defendant Balwant Singh, and that she in fact never adopted him, and that a document which is called a deed of adoption, dated the 13th of January 1899, might be declared to be void.2. Raja Raghubir Singh died on the 23rd of April 1868 at the age of about 20 years. After his death his widow, the plaintiff, Rani Dharam Kunwar, gave birth to a son on the 16th of December 1868, who was named Jagat Parkash Singh. This eon died on the 31st of August 1870, and on the 4th of March 1877, the plaintiff adopted a boy Tofa Singh, who was afterwards renamed Raja Narendra Singh. This adopted boy died about 2 1/2 years after his adoption, and on the 20th of January 1883 the plaintiff adopt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›