Allahabad Court April 1910 Judgments
Rambaran Upaddhia and anr. Vs. Kashi Upaddhia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.400
Karamat Husain, J.1. In this case on the 8th of July 1908, Altaian, J., under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, remanded the case for trial to the learned District Judge, who, instead of carrying out the order of this Court himself, remanded the case by his order of the 6th of January 1909 to the learned Munsif. The learned Munsif carried out the order of the learned District Judge and then the learned District Judge decided the case. The defendants come here in appeal and the only point argued by their learned Counsel is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the learned Munsif. In ' support of this contention reliance is placed on the case of Sita Ram v. None Dulaya 21 A. 230, which is a case under the old Code of Civil Procedure. The ruling, in my opinion, is applicable to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23, of the new Code of Civil Procedure. I, therefore, allow this appeal with costs, and setting aside the decree of t...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Lal and ors. Vs. Matru Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.404
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of land, and in the alternative to recover a sum of Rs. 2,600 with Rs. 195 interest. The plaintiffs stated their cause of action as follows: That there was a decree against one Girwar Dayal and Musammat Chandan Kunwar, that in execution of this decree the property, the subject-matter of the present suit, was, attached, that the defendant borrowed Rs. 2,600 from the plaintiffs and purchased the land, agreeing at the same time that he would re-sell the property to the plaintiffs. The facts of the case, as found by the Court below, are somewhat different, viz, the plaintiffs after obtaining their decree applied to the Court for leave to bid. This leave was refused. To quote the Court below, 'They (i.e., the plaintiffs) then cast about for some device in order to evade the provisions of the law. Defendant was then, in their confidence. Accordingly the plaintiffs with...
Tag this Judgment!Tafazul HusaIn Vs. Than Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.426
1. This appeal a-rises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sought to be pre-empted is zamindari and the vendor and pre-emptor are Muhammadans. It is admitted that the right of preemption, if any, is based on Muhammadan law. The facts are quite clear. At the time of the sale, the plaintiff pre-emptor was a co-sharer in the same mahal as a vendor. After the institution of the suit, partition proceedings commenced. Indeed they were originally commenced by an application of the plaintiff himself. It is said that he withdrew from this application and possibly this is correct. However, partition proceedings were had with the result that there was a final decree, which took effect on the 1st of July 1907. The decree of the Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption is dated the 9th of July 1907. The suit was dismissed upon the ground that the plaintiff pre-emptor, as the result of the partition, was no longer a co-sharer in the mahal in which the property, the subject-matte...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Bishambhar Nath Vs. Goddar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.789
Griffin, J.1. The defendant, who is appellant in this Court, in execution of a decree held by him against one Tula Ram, attached as the property of his judgment-debtor the crops of the plaintiff Groddar. The plaintiff filed an objection against the attachment. His objection was allowed and the attachment was removed. While the property was under attachment and in the custody of the Shahna (the temporary bailiff) of the Court, most of the attached crops disappeared. The Shahna was prosecuted and found guilty under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit to recover a gum of Rs. 457-8, which is made up of two items, namely, Rs. 417-80 the value of the crops which disappeared while under attachment, and Rs. 40 as damages for the wrongful act of the defendant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for Rs. 40, that is, for the damages claimed by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit for the value of the attached crops...
Tag this Judgment!Chhedi Kandu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.390
George Knox, J.1. Th is case has been / very properly reported by the learned Sessions Judge of Azamgarb. The order made by the learned Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, is entirely unwarranted. The facts so far as they appear from the record are that on th0e 22nd November 1909 a telegram purporting to be from Chediram, chaprasi, was received by the Collector of Azamgarb. The telegram runs as follows:I was on duty. Kurk Amin Naib Tehsildar, Rassak, chaprasi and Plague Doctor forcibly broke my house door and beat my family and inoculated plague tika.2. The telegram appears to have been sent by the Collector to the learned Magistrate who tried this case. Presuming always that the learned Magistrate is aware of the contents of the Criminal Procedure Code and acts in accordance with its provisions, it is evident that he did not treat the telegram as a complaint.3. He did not at once examine the complainant upon oath and his order dated 22nd November cannot be considere...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Jagmohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.420
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to a certain house or part of the house. The plaintiff is the son of one Ram Autar Singh deceased. The. defendant married a daughter of the said Ram Autar Singh and undoubtedly lived in the premises in dispute for a long time. The plaintiff claims that the defendant lived in the house during the life-time of Ram Autar Singh by the latter's permission and that on his father's death, he (the plaintiff) was a minor. The defendant set up a title that the premises in dispute were a gift to himself and his first wife, the daughter of Ram Autar Singh. The Court below has decided on the merits of the case in favour of the plaintiff, but nevertheless dismissed the suit on the ground next herein after mentioned. The defendant pleaded that the parties by agreement dated the 28th November 1902, referred certain disputes (including the dispute as to the title of the house) to arbitration, that th...
Tag this Judgment!Bandhu Ahir Vs. Bisheshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.704a
Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The question raised in it is whether the entry in the wajib-ul-arz relied on as proof of a custom is evidence of a custom or of a contract. Both the Courts below have held that the entry in this wajib-ul-arz of 1860 is evidence of a contract and on this ground dismissed the suit. It is admitted that the entry relating to pre-emption in the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 is colourless, i.e., it might be read equally as a memorandum of contract or as a record of custom. This being the case, it would be necessary to hold, following the ruling in Majidan Bibi v. Sheikh Hayatan A.W.N. (1897) 3, that the wajib-ul-arz should be understood as the record of custom. The reason why the Courts below have held otherwise is that there is on the record a wajib-ul-arz of the year 1833, and it is said that the entry in that wajib-ul-arz relating to pre-emption is clearly record not of a custom but of a contract. The reason for this conclusion arrive...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Ali Khan Vs. Musammat Asghari Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.405
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as one of the heirs of Gulsher Khan for his share of the estate. The defendant Musammat Asghari Begum is the widow of the said Gulsher Khan. The latter pleaded that she was in possession of her deceased husband's property, that her dower debt remained undischarged, and she claimed to remain in possession until the dower debt was discharged. The lower appellate Court has found that the defendant's dower debt is Rs. 5,000 and it remains undischarged. It gave the plaintiff a decree conditional upon his paying the sum of Rs. 5,000.2. The plaintiff appeals and claims that he is entitled to possession, notwithstanding that the dower debt remains undischarged. He relies upon the fact that when the defendant applied for mutation of names she merely claimed mutation as sole heir of her deceased husband and that, therefore, she was not lawfully in possession in such a way as to entitle her to maintain possession until her d...
Tag this Judgment!Naipal Sonar Vs. Sheo NaraIn Sonar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.374
Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. One Chhagan, goldsmith, obtained a decree for sale under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act against Jagannath and others on the 21st February 1901. Upon the death of Chhagan, Bhiki, the father of the plaintiff, Sheo Narain, and Naipal, defendant, as the legal representatives of Chhagan, obtained an order absolute for sale on the 13th of February 1904. The plaintiff was a minor and execution of the decree was taken out by Naipal alone. He caused the property of the judgment-debtors to be sold by auction and himself purchased it in lieu of the amount of the decree, and the usual sale certificate was issued to him. The plaintiff alleges that this purchase was made with money belonging to the parties jointly, that it was in reality a purchase on behalf of both the decree-holders and that the plaintiff is entitled to a moiety of the property purchased. He accordingly brought the suit, out of which, this appeal has arisen, for possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Panna Bibi Vs. Musammat Habiba and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.891
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a certain sale-deed dated the 6th of February 1894. The sale-deed has been found to have been duly executed by the plaintiff. The deed transferred certain zamindary property to the defendants. Various pleas have been raised, but it seems to us that there is one matter which is quite sufficient to decide the case, namely, that of limitation. The suit, although the relief is put in various ways, is in truth and in fact a suit to set aside the sale-deed. As long as this deed stands in the plaintiff's way, she is not entitled to any declaration of the title. It is quite clear that in so far as the suit is for setting aside the sale-deed, it is barred by limitation. Even if we were to treat the suit as a suit for declaration' of the plaintiff's title, there are numerous reasons why no Court could grant such decree. In the first place, as we have already mentioned, there is her own deed which the Court below has found that she executed. The Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »