Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All592; 16Ind.Cas.1
Karamat Husain, J.1. The plaintiff, in 1910, sued on a mortgage made by two joint brothers, Bhopal and Bahadur. Bhopal, his eon Baddari, grandson Harnarain Singh, and nephew Sham Lai, were defendants. Baddari was appointed guardian ad litem of his minor son Harnarain, and notice was served upon him on the 14th of August, 1910. Bhopal signed it as a witness. Notice was not served on Bhopal personally, but the summons was affixed on the door of his house. The record does not show if this was deemed 6y the Munsif to be sufficient service. The suit was decreed on the 19th of December, 1910. The decree against Bhopal was exparte. An application for an order absolute was made on the 16th of July, 1911, and granted.2. Bhopal, on the 1st of August, 1911, applied under Order IX, Rule 13, to have the expert decree set aside, stating in the affidavit that on the date on which the case was heard, he was in Allahabad. The Munsif, holding that there was sufficient reason for absence, set aside the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All589
Chamier, J.1. The applicant was convicted by a magistrate of the second class in the Benares district under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, of having enticed away Musammat Kharag Kumari, who was the wife of the complainant, Gokul Prasad. The applicant appealed to the District Magistrate without success. He Las now applied to this Court to set aside the conviction on two grounds, namely, that there is no evidence that he enticed the woman away and that she is not the lawfully married wife of the complainant. On the first point there are the concurrent findings of the courts below, and having looked into the evidence I see no reason to think that they are erroneous. On the second point it is conceded that the prosecution had to establish that Kharag Kumari was the wife of the complainant. The prosecution proved that the complainant married Kharag Kumari eleven or twelve years ago in Nepal, to which country both parties seem to have originally belonged. The prosecution also proved that co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.513
Chamier, J.1. The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of the second class in the Benares District under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, of having enticed away Musammat Kharag Kumari, who was the wife of the complainant, Gokul Prasad. The applicant appealed to the District Magistrate without success. He has now applied to this Court to set aside the conviction on two grounds, namely, that there is no evidence that he enticed the woman away and that she is not the lawfully married wife of the complainant. On the first point, there are the concurrent findings of the Courts below, and, having looked into the evidence, I see no reason to think that they are erroneous. On the second point, it is conceded that the prosecution had to establish that Kharag Kumari was the wife of the complainant. The prosecution proved that the complainant married Kharag Kumari eleven or twelve years ago in Nepal, to which country both parties seem to have originally belonged. The prosecution also proved tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.338
Banerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by two plaintiffs, Kedar Pandey and Shimbu Pandey, for a declaration that the trees standing on plots Nos. 446 and 573 were in the possession of the defendant subject to the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs, that the defendant was liable to deliver to the plaintiffs half of the produce as zemindari due and that the defendant had no proprietary right in the trees, that he had only the right of a person who had planted them, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive half of the fruit and timber from the defendant. Trees standing on a third plot were also included in the claim but so far as those trees are concerned, the claim was withdrawn in the Court of first instance.2. It appears that the parties or their pre-decessors-in-title were co-sharers in the village in which the trees exist. A partition took place between them in the year 1857 under which two mahals were formed, one of 14 annas and the other of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.741
Piggott, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff Bidesi, sued to recover possession of two plots of land, forming part of a fixed-rate tenancy and with a total area of 1 bigha, 5 biswas. His plaint appears to admit that the land in dispute formed part of a larger holding with a total area of 4 bighas, 8 biswas, which had formerly stood in the name of Sheopal, father of the defendant Nidhai. The plaintiff says, in the first place, that he is a son of Jangi, brother of Sheopal, and that in Sheopal's life time, the entire holding belonged to, and was cultivated by, all members of the family jointly. On the death of Sheopal, it is quite clear that there was a dispute between the parties which took the form of a contested application for mutation of names before a Revenue Court. This dispute was settled by a compromise, dated March 16th, 1909, to which the plaintiff Bidesi, and the defendant Nidhai, were parties. The petition of compromise is somewhat curiously worded, and contains certain recital...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.862
Banerji, J.1. I regret that I am obliged to set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand the case as the suit was brought so far back as the 29 th of February 1904. It was one for possession of land on the ground that it belonged to the plaintiffs and appertained to their village. The Court of first instance, the Munsif of Bansgaon, dismissed the suit on the 30th of August, 1904. An appeal was preferred by the defendants to the District Judge of Gorakhpur. It was heard by him and issues were re-ferrad by him to the Court below on the 13th of March 1907. The Munsif recorded findings on the issues on the 21st of March 1907. The learned Judge considered the findings to be insufficient and referred back the issues on the 4th of June 1907. Meanwhile, some of the parties died. The Munsif thereupon sent back the case to the District Judge in order that the legal representatives of the deceased might be brought on the record. On receipt of the record and before findings upon the issues ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.435
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage made on the 7th of July 1891, by one Musamrnat Munga Bibi, now represented by the plaintiff and some of the defendants. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 35. The plaintiff offers to pay that amount, but claims Rs. 30 as damages for injury done to the mortgaged premises, which was a house. The mortgagee claimed, in addition to the principal amount of the mortgage, certain sums alleged to have been spent on repairs of the house and in re-building portions of it which had fallen down, and also water rates paid by him together with interest. The plaintiffs denied that any constructions had been made and that the mortgagor had assented to such constructions.2. The Court of first instance awarded to the mortgagee costs of repairs, together with interest, the amount of rates and cesses paid, as also interest thereon; and costs of constructions, which it found had been made with the consent of the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.438
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 1,794, and, in default of payment, for foreclosure on the basis of two deeds, dated July 19th, 1864, and September 1st, 1865. Both deeds were executed by the ancestors of the respondents in favour of the ancestors of the appellants. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim after making. a slight correction in the appellant's account of interest. On appeal, the District Judge disallowed the claim so far as it rested on the later deed, which, in his opinion, was not a mortgage.2. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether the later deed is a mortgage.3. The earlier deed is a mortgage by way of conditional sale in one of the usual forms. the date fixed for payment being June 24th, 1869.4. The later deed contains a promise to pay a definite sum with interest thereon by the last day of Baisakh (presumably the next following Baisakh, which ended on April 29th, 1866), and provides that, if payment is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.292
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for recovery of possession over certain house property situated in the city of Jhansi. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed a considerable portion of the plaintiffs' suit, and I am only concerned with that portion of the claim which has been decreed. The finding in respect of this is that it belonged to one Namdar Khan, who died somewhere about the year 1894 A. D. He left surviving him his widow, Raj Bibi, and two nephews (sons of his own brother Jawahir Khan) named, Ali Khan and Ghasi Khan. The latter has since died, leaving a son named Rahim Khan, a widow Musammat Muradi and a daughter Musammat Mahtabi. On the 22nd of February 1903, Musammat Raj Bibi executed a deed by which she purported to sell the property, with which I am now concerned, to Chand Khan and Moti Khan. In the present suit, the plaintiffs are Ali Khan and the heirs of Ghasi Khan, that is to say, his son, widow and daughter already named. The defendants are Musammat Raj Bibi, Chand Khan...
Tag this Judgment!