Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.25
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage dated 1st November 1892, executed by one Lachman Singh. The principal sum secured was Rs. 1,300. In regard to the sum of Rs. 300, the Courts below have dismissed the suit but in regard to Rs. 1,000, the claim has been decreed. It is common ground that there was a prior mortgage-deed of 1890 by Lachman Singh and the Courts below have held that the second mortgage-deed covered the balance due on the deed of 1890 plus a sum due on accounts. Lachman Singh s defence was that of the Rs. 300 Rs. 300, though handed to him at the 'time of registration, had been handed back to the mortgagee afterwards. As to the whole debt he pleaded that he used to borrow money from Mangli Lal, the father of the plaintiffs and re-pay him from time to time; that the mortgage-deeds were taken from him from time to time to secure the amounts found due from him, that accounts had repeatedly been struck between them in the books of Mangli Lal an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.981
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage of a grove. The mortgagor is a tenant of the mortgagee. It was fouud by the first Court that the trees mortgaged stood on what is the occupancy holding of the mortgagor. The Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that a simple mortgage of an occupancy holding is void. On appeal, the District Judge held that the mortgage was valid because it was made in favour of the mortgagor's landlord. He seems to have been led to this conclusion by Section 31 of the Tenancy Act. It has been observed, more than once, that this section is not happily worded. In Ram Sarup v. Kishan Lal 29 A. 327 : A.W.N. (1907) 76 : 4 A.L.J. 306 it was held that the word 'voidable' in this section is used not in the sense in which that term is ordinarily used, and that the section was not intended to show that a transfer contrary to the provisions of Section 20 was voidable only and not void, but was intended to give a special remedy to the landholder. It seems to me that the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.851
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the appellants noon a document executed in favour of their ancestor, Sheo Mangal Singh, by the first respondent, Sarup Singh, on September 20th, 1887. The appellants contended that the document was a simple mortgage and they claimed a decree for sale of certain land in two villages. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the document effected neither a mortgage nor a charge. The Munsif hold that it effected either a mortgage or a charge and he gave the appellants a decree for sale of a part of the property, the rest of the property having passed into the hands of a purchaser for value without notice of the document in question. On appeal, the District Judge held that the document effected neither a mortgage nor a charge and he dismissed the suit. Before stating the terms of the document in question, it is necessary to point out that in 1880, the executant of the document had made an usufructuary mortgage of the land now sought to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.856
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the applicant on an instalment-bond, dated October 28th, 1895, for the recovery of instalments said to be due for the Sambat years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. The applicant alleged that the instalments had been regularly paid from the date of the bond up to and including 1964 Sambat, that is to say, from 1952 to 1964 Sambat. It has been found, however, by the Court below that no instalments have ever been paid. The question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The Court below has held that it is barred relying on the decisions in Radha Bai v. Kamod Singh 30 A. 38 : A.W.N. (1907), 276 : 4 A.L.J. 69630 A. 38 : A.W.N. (1907), 276 : 4 A.L.J. 696 and Jadab Chandra Bakshi v. Bhairab Chandar Chuckerbutty 31 C. 297. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that the case is not governed by the decision of this Court just mentioned, and that the decision of the Calcutta High Court is inconsistent with the decision of this Court in Ajudhiya v. Kunjal 30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All602
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. In this case sanction for prosecution under Sections 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, was granted by a Magistrate and the Assistant Sessions Judge on revision revoked the sanction, but taking action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed the prosecution of the applicant and sent the record to the District Magistrate with the request that the complaint be made over to a competent Magistrate for disposal according to law. The applicant comes here in revision, and his learned Counsel urges that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention he relies upon the case In the matter of the petition of Mathura Das (1892) I.L.R., 16 All., 80. The case, no doubt, supports the contention. In that case a learned Judge of this Court was of opinion that when a matter is taken up in revision to a higher court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1913)ILR35All329
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The four appellants Kanhai, Diwan, Karan Singh and Ganga Sahai have been convicted of the offence of murder and have been sentenced to transportation for life. They appeal. They were originally tried and convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment each. They appealed to this Court and the learned Judge before whom their appeals came set aside the convictions and sentences and ordered them to be re-tried for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. They have now been tried and convicted of that offence. The facts established by the evidence are briefly as follows: In the month of August last, when there was a great demand for water for the purpose of irrigation and all cultivators were eager to get as much water as possible, the deceased was watering his field early in the morning before day-break, when the four accused, armed with lathis, went up to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.525
1. In this case, sanction for prosecution under sections 193 and 211, Indian Penal Code, was granted by the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge revoked the sanction, but, taking action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed the prosecution of the applicant and sent the record to the District Magistrate with the request that the complaint be made over to a competent Magistrate for disposal according to law. The applicant comes here in revision, and his learned Counsel urges that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take, action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention, he relies upon the case of In the matter of the petition of Mathura Das 16 A. 80 : A.W.N. (1894) 9. The case, no doubt, supports the contention. In that case a learned Judge of this Court was of opinion that when a matter is taken up in revision to a higher Court under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.743
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant in a Court of ' Munsif for the ejectment of the respondent from two plots of land. The suit was resisted on the ground that the parties were landlord and tenant and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The respondent pleaded that he had been cultivating the plots. But the Courts below have found that he has not cultivated them but has held them only for grazing purposes and that he has been paying Rs. 3 a year for them to the appellant. The Munsif found that the suit was cognizable by a Civil Court and decreed the claim. On appeal, the District Judge held that the suit was barred with reference to the provisions of Sections 4, 56 and 167 of the Tenancy Act. The suit as brought was not cognizable by a Revenue Court if, as I am informed, (the plaint is not before me), the appellant alleged that the respondent was a trespasser. That allegation has been negatived by the Courts below, and the question is whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.849
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for foreclosure on a mortgage, dated the 21st of May 1877. The first defendant, Ram Din, was implicated as heir of the mortgagor, and there were some 19 other defendants implead-ed as subsequent transferees. For the purpose of the appeal now before m9, it is sufficient to say that Mahadeo and Bhairon, defendants Nos. 13 and 14, have acquired the equity of redemption in one half of the property originally mortgaged while the remaining defendants are interested in the other half. The property in question is situated in the district of Jalaun and it has been found that Mahadeo and Bhairon took advantage of the provisions of Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act (I of 1903). No claim was preferred against them in respect of the mortgage now in suit and there is no doubt that they are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act; that is to say, every claim against them in respect of this deed must he deemed for all purposes and at all t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All599
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:--On the 20th of June, 1885, Husain Ali and Jawwad Husain mortgaged 6 bighas, 1 biswa and 18 dhurs of zamindari to Radhe and Chirkil.2. On the 19th of January, 1889, Husain Ali sold 3 bighas, 19 dhurs out of the same to Abid and Shafi, a part of the sale consideration being left with the vendees to pay off the mortgage (which they failed to do).3. On the same date, Abid and Shafi and their two brothers, Nadir and Yusuf, mortgaged several properties to Mahadeo Prasad. Among these was the 3 bighas, 19 dhurs, zamindari purchased by Abid and Shafi alone. On the 4th of January, 1890, Radhe and Ohirkil sold their mortgagee rights under the deed of the 20th of June, 1885, to Nadir. In 1897, Mahadeo Prasad brought a suit for sale on his mortgage. Nadir was then dead and in his place Ashraf and Musharraf, his sons, were impleaded as his heirs.4. An examination of the plaint shows that Maha...
Tag this Judgment!