Allahabad Court March 1913 Judgments
Hori Lal Vs. Gobardhan Das and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All364
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent Hori Lal on a mortgage made in his favour on the 22nd of November, 1889, by three persons, Khushal Singh, Moti Singh and Baljit Singh. Both the courts below have found that the mortgage in suit has been proved and have decreed the claim. This is a second appeal by some of the defendants, who contend, and have throughout contended, that the mortgage deed has not been proved. Other points are taken in the appeal to this Court. But, in the view we take of the question of the proof of the deed in suit, it is unnecessary to refer to them. The three executants of the deed, being unable to write, made their marks. All three of them and all the attesting witnesses to the deed died before this suit was brought. The evidence adduced to prove the document consists of (1) the statement of a witness named Lalta Prasad, who claimed to be acquainted with the hand-writing of two of the attesting witnesses, (2) ...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Bihari Ghoshal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All368
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under the Land Acquisition Act. The property in respect of which the claim arises is situate in Allahabad, not far from the Muir Central College, for which institution it was acquired. The appellant has been awarded the sum of Rs. 7,900. In his appeal he claims a further sum of Rs. 32,000. There can be no doubt that if the appellant was the absolute owner of the property in dispute or even if he had a permanent interest therein subject only to the payment of Rs. 48-8-0 per annum to Government, he would be entitled to a considerably larger sum than has been awarded to him by the court below. We have considered the evidence, and we entirely agree with the court below that the appellant has not shown that he had any permanent interest in the plot. In our opinion his tenure amounted to no more than a tenancy from year to year.2. We have been referred to Naba Kumari Debi v. Behari Lal Sen (1907) I.L.R., 34 Calc., 90...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Allahdad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All358
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. One Allahdad Khan was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 63 of the United Provinces Excise Act, No. IV of 1910, which provides as follows:Whoever, without lawful authority, has in his possession any quantity of any excisable article knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured, and knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.2. The Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Inspector in charge of the city police station, on information received, searched the house of Allahdad Khan and discovered there a mixture of cocaine and another drug. The accused was convicted by a magistrate and sentenced to six weeks' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge held that the search of the accused's house was illegal and that...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bimala Charan Roy
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All361
Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code from an appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore maintaining the convictions and sentences passed on the applicant under Sections 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts which led to the conviction of the appellant are as follows. The applicant Bimala Charan Roy was the water-works inspector in the service of the municipality of Cawnpore on Rs. 140 per mensem. He rented two houses situated in one compound No. 6/2 7/8 in mohalla Patkapur in the city of Cawnpore. He himself lived in the larger house and let the other house to two brothers Surendra Nath and Birendra Nath Banerji at a rent of Rs. 3 per mensem. It seems that water was laid on to the larger house but not to the smaller one. The tenants of the smaller house wanted the water to be laid on to their house and spoke about it to the applicant. The latter tapped the principal main which ran on the east s...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lalji and anr. Vs. Gordhan Lalji Maharaj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All283
Ameer Ali, J.The dispute in this case relates to the shebaitship of a Hindu temple belonging to the Ballavacharya Gossains situated at a place called Jatipura in the Muttra district of the United Provinces of India.2. The Ballavacharya cult, in reality an offshoot of Vaishnavism, was founded in the 16th century of the Christian Era by one Ballavacharya, who is usually designated among his followers and disciples as Maha Pirbhuji. He and his descendants, who constitute the Ballavacharya Gossain Kul, are held in great veneration by the members of the sect and regarded as the incarnation of the famous and favourite Hindu deity Krishna, whom in common with other Vaishnavs (Vishnuvites) they worship. The cult established by Ballavacharya differed in several particulars from the practices in vogue among other votaries of Krishna, the principal point of difference consisting in the fact that he repudiated the practice of celibacy and asceticism practiced by the other Gossains.3. The Ballavach...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Khelawan Rai and anr. Vs. Meghu Rai and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All326
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: The plaintiffs sued alleging that they were the reversioners to a property which had been alienated by way of mortgage by one Musammat Mata Kunwar, the widow of Ram Saran Rai, and mother of one Jagmohan. The claim was that the mortgage made by the Musammat Mata Kunwar should be declared not to be binding upon the plaintiffs as reversioners. There was no allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs were suing as distant reversioners, the nearer reversioners having done something to prevent them from bringing the suit. No such allegation was necessary, because, as already mentioned, the claim of the plaintiffs was that they were the next reversioners. This contention was based upon the allegation that Jagmohan survived his father Ram Saran Rai. The lower appellate court found that the plaintiffs' allegation that Jagmohan survived Ram Saran Rai was not only false but was supported by fabricat...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar and ors. Vs. Bakhshi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All353
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This was a suit by the respondents on three mortgages, dated the 18th of August, 1878, the 15th of March, 1890, and 13th of November, 1898, but for the purposes of the present appeal we may regard it as a suit on the mortgage of the 15th of March, 1890, only. The first defendant to the suit was Kallu, the executant of the mortgage. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 were the sons of Kallu. Defendant 5 was a lessee of the mortgaged property, and defendant 6, who is the appellant here, is a purchaser of the property in execution of a money decree obtained by him against the defendant Kallu. The appellant put the respondents to proof of the mortgage and of the passing of the consideration and he also pleaded that the mortgage had been made without necessity. The first court held that the execution of the mortgage was proved by the evidence of two witnesses Raghunath Prasad and Bhudeo, but that the passing of a portion of the consideration had not been proved. That cour...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. Phaggu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All325
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case, who is respondent here, agreed to supply the defendant with stone for building purposes. The stone was delivered at Karnal, but on examination it was found to be wholly unsuitable to the purposes for which it was supplied. The defendant then brought a suit against the plaintiff in the Punjab and obtained a decree for a refund of the price of the stone and for damages. The plaintiff has now brought this suit asserting that it was the duty of the defendant to return the stone to him. The defendant's plea is that he is not bound to put himself to the expense and trouble of returning the stone, and that it was the business of the plaintiff to take the stone away if he was so minded. The case appears to be covered by a decision of the Court of Common Pleas in England in the case of Grimoldby v. Wells (1). We hold that it was not the duty of the defendant to return the stone, and that the plaintiff has no cause of action against hi...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Kunwar Vs. Matu Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All311
George Knox, Tudball and Chamier, JJ.1. The facts of this case as found by the court below and which are not now contested before us are briefly as follows:Rup Ram, a separated Hindu, died leaving a widow, Musammat Ganga Kunwar, and a mother, Musammat Parbati. One part of his estate was a debt secured by a simple mortgage over certain property. The widow and mother without legal necessity transferred this by deed of sale in favour of the present plaintiff appellant, who has brought this suit for sale impleading as defendants,(1) the mortgagors or their representatives,(2) the transferors of the bond, and(3) certain prior mortgagees who had sued upon their bond without impleading the puisne mortgagee and having obtained a decree for sale had in execution thereof purchased the property and obtained possession.2. The mortgagors did not defend the suit. The vendors admitted the claim. The prior mortgagees contested it, and the one defence with which we are concerned in this appeal was that...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Prasad Raut Vs. Raghunath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All307
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The appellant is a judgment-debtor whose house in a certain village has been attached in the execution of a simple money decree. Two portions of the same house have already been attached and sold, and the remainder, which is described as a six anna share, has now been attached. The judgment-debtor came forward and objected that he was an agriculturist and therefore his house was exempt from attachment and sale. The court below has decided that the house is not occupied by him as an agriculturist and is therefore not exempt from sale. He has come here on appeal. The question is whether or not he has produced evidence to show that he is an agriculturist and occupied the house as such. The appellant was formerly the zamindar of the village, but his interest as such has been sold and he now holds his sir land as an exproprietary holding. He lives in another village and holds zamindari in several villages. He has produced two witnesses who state that his ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »