Allahabad Court November 1909 Judgments
Beti Maha Lachmi Bai Vs. Raja Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.394
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage made on the 30th of June, 1900, for one lakh of rupees by two brothers, Raja Bahadur and Jang Bahadur. The defendants are the two mortgagors Raja Bahadur and Jang Bahadur and the three sons of Jang Bahadur. The suit was defended by the sons of Jang Bahadur on the ground that the debt was not incurred for family necessity but that it was incurred for immoral purposes. In the third paragraph of their written statement they alleged that Raja Bahadur and Jang Bahadur were spendthrifts, debauchers, drunkards and imprudent men and that they have squandered all the ancestral household property of the family. In the fourth paragraph they say that of the debts stated in the document sued on as having been paid some are fictitious and have no existence at all. Then they go on to state that 'if any debts are actually proved their amounts must have been improperly spent by, Raja Bahadur and Jang Bahadur or must have been paid to def...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Debi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.385
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against certain defendants. The suit related to certain plots of land. The plaintiffs claimed that these plots belonged to them and were allotted to the mahal on partition. The defendants claimed that these plots had been allotted to them on partition. The defendants were the owners of one mahal, the plaintiffs were the owners of the other mahal. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in respect of one plot and dismissed it with respect to the other. On appeal the lower appellate Court granted the plaintiff a decree in respect to both plots excepting an infinite simal area of one. The decree was a joint decree against all the defendants, the latter all appealed. Pending the appeal one of them died and his representative in title was not brought on the record within the period allowed by law. An application was as a matter of fact made out of time but it was disallowed.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Ghafoor-ud-dIn Vs. Hafiz Hamid HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.406
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 283 of Act No. XIV of 1882 under the following circumstances: One Fakhr-ud-din had two wives namely Musammat Latifunnissa and Musammat Shakurunnissa. The latter died in 1894 and on her death Ghafoor-ud-din, plaintiff-appellant, her brother, brought a suit claiming one-half of the amount alleged to be her dower. He got an ex parte decree against Fakhr-ud-din on the 19th of January 1898 and in execution of that decree caused certain property to be attached in February 1898. Fakhr-ud-din appealed against the decree to this Court and thereupon the case relating to the execution of the decree was struck off the files on the 24th of December 1898. This Court set aside the ex parte decree on the 26th of November 1900 and remanded the case to the Court below for fresh trial. The lower Court re-heard the case and made a decree for Rs. 75 but upon appeal to this Court that decree was varied and a decree was made on the 27th of April 1904 ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Parbati Vs. Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.419
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption in respect to a certain zamindari share. The plaintiff is one Musammat Parbati, widow of a deceased son of one Kirpa Ram. Kirpa Ram and his brother Khiali Ram were members of a joint Hindu family and the property which now stands in the name of the plaintiff is part of the ancestral property of Kirpa Ram and Khiali Ram. Moreover, there has been no partition in the family. The plaintiff Musammat Parbati still lives jointly with Khiali Ram. The share in the village which now stands in her name has not been conveyed to her in any legal manner or by any document. This suit for pre-emption was instituted in her name by Khiali Ram himself acting as her general attorney. It was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the ground that the wajib-ul-arz on which reliance was placed to prove the alleged custom proved on the contrary a contract and not a custom and the period of settlement having come to an end, th...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Vs. Matru Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.389
1. The facts of this case are set forth in our order of 7th December, 1908, by which we referred an issue to the Court below for a finding on the question whether the mortgage of the 14th of April, 1893, had been fully discharged before the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed. That Court has found that a sum of Rs. 1,562-3-8 was due on the date of the sale. Objections have been taken to this finding but they are in our judgment untenable. There is no force in the first and the third objections. As to the profits of Afzalpur we think the Court below has calculated them on a right basis. The fourth objection is equally untenable. As under the terms of the lease executed by the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage of 14th April, 1893, profits were payable to the mortgagee at the end of each year and not half-yearly, the learned Subordinate Judge was right in the method pursued by him in calculating the amount due on the said mortgage.2. It follows from the finding of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Nazar Khan and anr. Vs. Sadar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.404
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The defendants sued for partition in the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs in this suit set up a claim to exclusive possession of a part of the property included in the application for partition. The plaintiffs were referred to the Civil Court. They, accordingly, instituted the present suit and alleged that there had been a private partition under which an area of 36 bighas, 3 biswas out of 54 bighas and biswas 4 were partitioned and that on a part of the land allotted to them by the private partition they had planted certain grove and they claimed a declaration (not that they are entitled to the possession of the whole land allotted to them by the private partition) but that they are entitled to exclusive possession of so much of the land as they had planted with trees. This was a declaration to which they were clearly not entitled even assuming that they made out a case that the private partition had actually taken place. The Court...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaya Lal Vs. Ajudhia Prashad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.396
1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted under Section 539 of Act (XIV of 1882). One Bansidhar by his Will dated the 5th of March, 1892, made a waqf of the property therein mentioned providing for the disbursement of the income of the property on certain charitable objects. He appointed his daughter, Musammat Muni, mutawalli of the waqf and gave her power in her life-time by a written document to appoint her successor as mutawalli. Musammat Muni never exercised the power of appointing her successor, but upon her death Kanhaya Lal defendant appears to have taken possession of the property and succeeded in having it entered in his own name as his private property. He actually mortgaged it to his own wife for Rs. 11,500. Kanhaya Lal alleges, and we may assume that it is true, that he paid back this Rs. 11,500 by a relinquishment of the mortgage. Even in the present appeal the defendant Kanhaya Lal contends that he is entitled to one-half of the income as his private property. The le...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Girraj Singh and ors. Vs. Lala Hargobind Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.304
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs claimed to have a sale-deed, executed and registered on the 12th of January 1900, set aside as being void and also on account of breach of conditions on the part of the defendant's possession of a certain house. The house in question is situate in the village of Badhsana in the Meerut District. That village belongs to the plaintiffs who are the zamindars. The defendant No. 1 Hargovind Sahai was a tenant of the plaintiffs, and he sold the house in question and the site of it to the defendants Nos. 2--5. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that the defendant No. 1 constructed the house in dispute with the permission of the plaintiffs and that under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz of the village no ryot was entitled to sell, or mortgage, or make a gift of any house or enclosure in the village and that despite this provision of the wajib-ul-arz the defendant, without the permission of the plaintiffs sold the house in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.312
ORDERStanley, C.J.1. This is an application to set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh, dated the 17th of August 1909, whereby he revoked the order of the Magistrate of the first class of the 4th of June 1909, discharging the applicants.2. It appears that the applicants were charged with offences under Sections 342 and 357 of the Indian Penal Code. These offences were not proved and the Court discharged the accused. On an application for revision of the order of discharge the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the charges under Sections 342 and 357 were not appropriate charges in view of the facts appearing in evidence but that the real charge against the accused was one of forgery. He accordingly set aside the order of discharge purporting to act under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and substantially directed further enquiry with a view to a prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 467. I am of opinion that the learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.428
ORDER1. Munshi, Ganeshi, Ram Phal and Tika were convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class of Bulandshahr for an offence under Section 325, I.P.C. They were sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and to imprisonment for one day. The Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh has forwarded the case to us with a recommendation that the sentence be enhanced. Before sending the case on he called upon the Magistrate for any explanation that he might wish to offer. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the explanation sent in by the Magistrate is a most extraordinary one. If any meaning can be given to it, it appears to bear this meaning that the learned Magistrate if he had been allowed to follow his own convictions as regards the nature of the case and the facts he would have dismissed the case as false and revengeful. We do not under stand how under these circumstances he could bring himself to pass such an order as the conviction of an accused and the passing of a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »