Allahabad Court December 1909 Judgments
Hazari Lal Vs. Durga Parshad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.114
1. The solitary question before us for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether or not the Wajib-ul-arz rightly. construed records a pre-existing custom of pre-emption. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for, pre-emption as brought. The Subordinate Judge reversed that decree. In dealing with the question before us, which was also before him, he says that the finding on this issue depends on the construction of the pre-emptive clause in the Wajib-ul-arz of the previous settlement and if that clause contain a record of the custom of pre-emption, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to claim the property in dispute by right of pre-emption, but plaintiff can have no such right if the said pre-emptive clause contains simply a covenant for pre-emption as that Covenant came to an end oh the expiration of the previous settlement and was not renewed in the dastur dehi of the present settlement.' In appeal the learned Judge of this Court took into consideration the words ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Goswami Rajjan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.129
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage under the following circumstances: One Thakur Das executed a mortgage-deed of the property in (sic) in favour of Chandi Prashad and Brij (sic) Lal on the 2nd of July 1898, each of (sic) mortgagees providing half of the advance. (sic) of April 1901, Thakur Das sold his (sic) redemption in the mortgaged property to the mortgagee Chandi Prashad, the amount of the purchase money being more than sufficient to satisfy the mortgage-debt in full. Brij Mohan Lal was no party to that ' transaction. Chandi Prashad then sold the property to the appellants on this appeal. The mortgagee Brij Mohan whose share in the mortgage debt had not been satisfied sold his mortgagee rights to the plaintiff-respondent Rajjan Lal. Rajjan Lal then brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery by sale of the mortgaged property of the portion of the mortgage debt to which Brij Mohan Lal was originally entitled. The main defence was that t...
Tag this Judgment!Chuni Lal Bohra and anr. Vs. Heera Lal Bohra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.175
1. The decision of tire learned Judge of this Court appears to us to be perfectly correct. The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover possession of a house situate in the abadi of the village of which they are the zamindars. The defendants set up the defence that they obtained permission from the plaintiffs to occupy the house in question and that they repaired the house and erected new buildings on the site. Then they say that the plaintifls had no right to dispossess them inasmuch as they lived in the house with the consent of the plaintiffs as tenants and ryots. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff s claim and on appeal this decision was confirmed. The learned Additional Judge in his judgment says: 'it is an admitted fact that the defendants are licensees' and then towards the end of the judgment observes when once the plaintiff gave the land to the defendant and he began to live on it, he cannot in the absence of any contract be...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Asma Bibi Vs. Abdul Samad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.411
1. The only point for determination in this appeal is the money value of 10 (ten) dirams or dirhams which has been found to be the dower of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has fixed it at about Rs. 35 (thirty-five). The learned Vakil for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the money value of 10 (ten) dirams is much more than Rs. 35. He relies on the following remarks in Sughra Bibi v. Musa Bibi 2 A. 573. But it would appear that we are not allowed to escape from a hopeless and helpless dilemma for we are told that we must either give this pauper plaintiff Rs. 51,000 or Fatima's portion of 10 (ten) dirams amounting to Rs. 107.2. With due respect to the learned Judges who fixed the money value of 10 (ten) dirams at Rs. 107, we are unable to say that 10. (ten) dirams amount to Rs. 107.3. A diram is 'a silver coin usually weighing from forty-five to fifty grains; rather heavier than an English six pence.' Wilson's Glossary p. 143. In a foot-note to the 'Hidayah' it is stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prashad and ors. Vs. Chimman Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.107
1. This is a second appeal arising out of certain proceedings in a partition case under the Land Revenue Act. An application for partition was presented on August 21, 1903, by certain recorded co-sharers who are not parties to the appeal now before us; and the Assistant Collector issued a notice to the remaining co-sharers in the mahal fixing November 4th, 1903, for the presentation of objections. On November 1, 1903, certain recorded co-sharers in the same mahal, Jagdish Prashad and others, who are the appellants now before us and may be hereafter spoken of simply as the appellants', presented what was beyond all question an application under Clause (2) of Section 110 of the Land Revenue Act asking that their own recorded shares might be formed into a separate mahal. They admitted in the application itself that certain other persons, namely Chimman Lal and others, the respondents now before us (hereafter to be referred to simply as the respondents'), were recorded as mortgagees-in-pos...
Tag this Judgment!Mithan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.17
Tudball, J.1. The circumstances of the case out of which this application has arisen are set forth at length in the order of this Court passed on Revision No. 530 of 1909. Subsequently to that order the District Magistrate issued notice to Mithan Lal to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 175, Indian Penal Code, and after hearing him has ordered his prosecution. It is against this latter order that the present application has been made in revision. Two points are taken:(1) That the order has been passed without jurisdiction and(2) that even if passed with jurisdiction, the circumstances of the case are such that no order for prosecution should have been passed.2. On the first point attention is called to a ruling of this Court. In the matter of the petition of Nihal Chand A.W.N. (1895) 225, where it was held that a Court entertaining an application under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revocation of a sanction granted for the prosecuti...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Mir Jahangir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.126
1. This is a first appeal from an order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur remanding a suit to the Court of first instance under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Civil Procedure Code. The question for determination is whether the suit as brought was barred by the provisions of Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. The suit was for recovery of possession of certain plots and for mesne profits. The plaintiff, Jahangir Ali, claims as lessee from one Riayat Bibi. In a previous suit, No. 439 of 1907, this lady herself had claimed damages from the same defendants on the ground that they had dispossessed her from the lands now in suit on July 9, 1905, by ploughing up her standing crops on the said lands and taking possession of the standing trees. The Court of first instance held that the present suit is barred because Riayat Bibi ought to have included a claim for recovery of possession in her suit of 1907. This finding the learned District Judge has reversed on appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Nath and anr. Vs. the Sectetary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.120
1. The appellants now before us were appellants in an appeal pending in the Court of Samll Causes (sic) Cawnpore. Upon the appeal being called (sic) for hearing, no pleader was at the (sic) in Court prepared to argue the case for (sic) appellants. The Small Cause Court Judgment thereupon dismissed the appeal. The appellants then went to the Small Cause Court Judge and asked for an order restoring appeal for hearing under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court refused to re-admit the appeal (sic) gave as reasons for refusal that it found that none of the applicants' pleaders were ready to proceed with the appeal, as no fee was paid to them. This appears to us from the record to be hardly an accurate representation of the state of the case. One of the applicants' pleaders namely Ram Sanehi Seth has filed a certificate duly signed by him stating that the full fee was paid to him on the 15th of July 1908, which was long before the date fixed for hearing the appea...
Tag this Judgment!HusaIn Bukhsh and ors. Vs. Hafiz Musahib Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.179
Karamat Husain, J.1. The plaintiff, Hafiz Musahib Khan, instituted a suit against Husain Bukhsh, Musammat Amiro and Mohammad Hanif, representatives of Musammat Nawab Jan, Kudratullah and Shabratan. The facts necessary for the disposal of this are these. The plaintiff obtained a simple money decree on the 22nd November 1907 against Kudratullah and Shabratan. In execution of that decree the house in dispute was attached on the 3rd December 1907. On the same date Kudratullah and Shabratan executed a sale-deed of the same house in favour of Musammat Nawab Jan. The sale-deed as it appears from an attested copy was executed and registered on the 3rd December 1907. On the strength of that sale-deed Musammat Nawab Jan, who was in possession of the house, objected to the attachment of the house. Her objection was allowed on the 20th of February 1908 and the house was released from the attachment. The plaintiff thereupon on the 4th of May 1908 instituted the present, suit for a declaration that ...
Tag this Judgment!Bitu Rai Vs. Bisheshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.128
ORDERTudball, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order purporting to have been passed by a Magistrate under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bisheshar and Bhagole applied to the Magistrate to take action under that section with reference to certain land and crops standing thereon. The Magistrate passed no order such as is contemplated by Clause (1) of that section. The only order was that Bitau, the opposite party, should be summoned and the complainant should adduce his evidence. On the date fixed the Magistrate merely examined the patwari and thereupon passed final orders. The Magistrate has clearly not adopted the procedure laid down in Chapter XII nor is his action based on any other Chapter to be discovered in the Criminal Procedure Code. His final order is, therefore, clearly passed without jurisdiction and I accordingly suit aside. It will, however, be open to the Magistrate if he deems it necessary to take action under Chapter XII of the Code. It may be a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »