Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 47Ind.Cas.311
Tudball, J.1. The amendment has been made. Court-fee must be paid on the amount of the prior charge. I allow two days to make good the deficiency....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.8
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:2. On 20th June 1885, Hussain Ali and Jawwad Husain mortgaged 6 bighas, 1 biswa, 18 dhurs of zemindari to Radhe and Chirkit. On 19th January 1889, Hussain Ali sold 3 bighas, 19 dhurs dut of the same to Abid and Shaft, 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 Pershad. Among these, was the 8 bighas, 19 dhurs zemindari purchased by Abid and Shaft alone. On 4th January 1890, Radhe and Chirkit sold their mortgagee rights under the deed of 20th June 1885 to Nadir. In 1897, Mahadeo Pershad 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 Mahadeo Pershad, among other reliefs, asked for sale of the 3 bighas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.817
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. Inderdeo Rai and others applied for partition of Mahal Sherpar which included 57 bighas, 14 biswas and 14 dhurs of land, which is the subject-matter of the present suit. The plaintiffs in, the present suit, or those whom they represent, made an application' also for partition and asked that the 57 bighas, 14 biswas and 14 dhurs might be made into a separate mahal, claiming that this property belonged to them absolutely. The Assistant Collector entertained these applications and as a result, there were partition proceedings before him which involved a partition of the property in dispute and other property. The Assistant Collector proceeded to make an order which was in the following term?: In view of the above, I think representatives of Gopi Rai and Sheopal Rai should remain in possession as they are of these 58 bighas and the plot should be included as Mauza Jugadana of Sahdeo Rai and others. Bat the entry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All597
Chamier, J.1. The applicants have been convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The only point taken in revision is that the warrant under which the police searched the house of the first applicant was issued by a magistrate who was not competent to issue it, and, therefore, the discovery of instruments of gaming in the house did not give rise to the presumption that the house was a 'common gaming house,' as defined in the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that a search warrant may be issued by the Magistrate of the District or 'other officer invested with the full powers of a magistrate.' This expression means a magistrate of the first class,--see Section 3(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The warrant in the present case was issued by M. Muhammad Shafi Khan, a magistrate of the first class in the Farrukhabad district. In November last, he was appointed to be sub-divisional officer of two tahsils in the district. The house searched is not in either of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All640
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of the case are these:--'Kudrat Shah and others, the predecessors in title of defendants, 2 and 3, made a simple mortgage of two plots of land with houses and trees, one of which is near Taksal and other near Kabir Chaura in favour of the plaintiff, on the 5th of July, 1875. They again mortgaged the same property to the same mortgagee on the 12th of March, 1878. One Subhan, alleging himself to be the son-in-law of Kudrat Shah, on the 15th of September, 1893, sold the land near Taksal to Musammat Biraiya, who made a mortgage of it to Babu Sital Prasad and Bisheshar Prasad on the 22nd of December,, 1893. They obtained a decree on their mortgagee on the 7th of November, 1900, in execution of which the land was purchased by Ram Dei, who built on it a house with a co3t of about Rs. 6,000.2. The plaintiff sued on his two mortgages on the 4th of May, 1910, claiming Rs. 1,628-6-3. Defendants 1, 2 and 3, as mutawallis, pleaded that the property near Kabir Chaura w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.44
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by a usufructuary mortgagee against his mortgagors on the basis of a kabuliyat signed by them. It appears that on the day when the mortgage was made, the mortgagee gave the mortgagers a lease of part of the mortgaged property. The land leased was old khudkasht land of the mortgagors. The snit has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that the arrangement was illegal. They have omitted to notice that the mortgage is not affected by the Tenancy Act. It was held by this Court in Madho Bhartki v. Barti Singh 16 A. 337 that a usufructuary mortgage did not fall within Section 7 of the old Rent Act of 1881 and that a person, who made a usufructuary mortgage, did not, therefore, become ex-proprietary tenant of his sir land. The arrangement now in question was not illegal when made and was not rendered illegal by the passing of the Tenancy Act. I allow this appeal, set aside the decisions of the Courts below and remand the case through the lower Appellat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.255
Piggott, J.1. I take the foil wing facts from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court: The defendant-respondent, Musammat Bundao, obtained a decree against Jaikaran Singh, the plaintiff-appellant, and his brothers, as the heirs and legal representatives of their grandfather, Udit Singh. The decree was for recovery of the money from any property of Udit Singh which might be found in the hands of the judgment-debtors. The person and other property of the judgment-debtors were exempted. Certain immoveable property was attached by the decree-holder in execution of this decree. Jaikaran Singh objected to the attachment on the ground that the property in question was his own and had not belonged to Udit Singh. This objection was decided against him on the merits and he filed no appeal. I agree with the lower Appellate Court that Jaikaran Singh is precluded, by reason of the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from maintaining the present suit, the object of which is to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.524
Chamier, J.1. The applicants have been convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The only point taken in revision is that the warrant, under which the Police searched the house of the first^ applicant, was issued by a Magistrate who was not competent to issue it, and, therefore, the discovery of instruments of gaming in the house did not give rise to the presumption that the house was a common gaming house, as defined in the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that a search warrant may be issued by the Magistrate of a District or 'other officer invested which the full powers of a Magistrate.' This expression means a Magistrate of the first class,--see Section 3(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The warrant in the present case was issued by M. Muhammad Shaffi Khan, Magistrate of the first Class, in the Farrukhabad District. In November last, he was appointed to be Sub-Divisional Officer of two Tahsils in the District. The house searched is not in either of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.637
Piggott, J.1. This second appeal raises a plain question of law. A Hindu widow in possession as such of her late husband's estate sold certain zemindari property which formed a portion of the said estate to the next reversioner, that is to say, to the one person who would have been entitled to succeed to the entire estate if the succession had opened by the death of the widow at the very time of the sale. As a matter of fact, the vendee died before the succession actually opened, and the plaintiff and two other persons (impleaded as pro forma defendants) were the nearest reversioners at that moment. The plaintiff sues to recover from the heirs of the vendee his one-third share in the property sold by the widow. Both Courts below have held that a sale to the nearest reversioner living at the time of the sale is equivalent to a sale with the consent of the said reversioner and was, therefore, sufficient to pass a good title independently of any direct evidence in support of the plea that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.670
Piggott, J.1. The essential facts of this case are given in my remand order, dated the 26th of April 1912. I may so far recapitulate them as to point out that a share of 101/2 pies in an undivided patti of 4 annas was mortgaged by one Musammat Jitan, the recorded owner of the same and was eventually brought to sale under a mortgage decree and purchased by the ancestor of Debi Prasad, defendant No, 5, on the 20th of October 1897. The twelfth paragraph of the plaint distinctly admits that the auction-purchaser has been in adverse possession, so far as this share is concerned, since the 20th of October 1897. The plaintiff is himself a co-sharer, apparently of a share of one-anna in the same undivided patti and has been receiving and enjoying the profits of this share. He claims that he is entitled to the same rateable proportion in the share of a 10 1/2 pies put up to sale as the property of Musammat Jitan and that his cause of action for a suit to recover possession of the said share acc...
Tag this Judgment!