Allahabad Court July 1913 Judgments
Balgobind and anr. Vs. Bhaggu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All558
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two promissory notes. The defendant pleaded want of consideration, and also that the consideration was void because it represented gambling losses. The court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower appellate court, after referring an issue, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. We think that we must accept the acts of the case as found by the court below which are as follows:2. The plaintiffs, the defendant and others were gambling at the house of the plaintiffs, during the Dewali. The defendant incurred losses, partly to the plaintiffs and partly to other persons. It is impossible to say exactly how much his losses were, and how much of those losses were losses to the plaintiffs, but there can be no doubt that the finding of the court is to the effect that the consideration for the promissory notes was at least in part losses to the plaintiffs in respect of gambling bets. The court belo...
Tag this Judgment!Har Dayal Vs. NaraIn Das and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All571
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to set aside a decree obtained in the year 1899 against him and his father. The decree in question was on a mortgage made in the year 1896, admittedly some two years before the birth of. the plaintiff. It is admitted also that at the time of the mortgage the mortgagor had no other son and was in that sense the sole owner of the property mortgaged. When the suit was brought the present plaintiff had been born, and he was made a party to the mortgage suit under the guardianship of his father. A decree was obtained upon foot of the mortgage and the property was sold. Subsequently the father died, and, the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property proving insufficient, a further decree was obtained under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act and certain other property was sold. In these proceedings the plaintiff's mother was substituted as his guardian for his deceased fathe...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Lal and anr. Vs. Makhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All556
Henry Richard, Kt. C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the court below refusing to set aside an ex parte decree. The applicant in the court below swore that he had never been served with the summons. There was no affidavit contradicting this statement. The learned Judge says 'the summons was delivered to the own paternal uncle of the applicant. Now the applicant pleads that the paternal uncle is not in his senses but he gives no proof of it, nor does he give any proof to show that he was not informed of the institution of the suit.' The service of the summons in suits is a very important part of the procedure. The Code itself provides that as far as possible service must be personal. Order V, Rule 15, provides that 'where in any suit the defendant cannot be found and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the defendant who is residing with him.' If it had been shown to...
Tag this Judgment!Wahid Ali Khan Vs. Tori Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All551
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property. In the present appeal we are only concerned with a five biswa share in mauza Khiwali Abdullahganj. The claim is made by reversioners, who claimed that the shares in this village formed portion of the estate of Than Chand. Than Chand died very many years ago, leaving him surviving two widows, Musammat Dhan Kunwar and Musammat Lachman Kunwar. Musammat Lachman Kunwar survived Musammat Dhan Kunwar. Musammat Lachman Kunwar died on the 18th of March, 1905, and the present suit was instituted on the 6th of August, 1908.2. The title to the property now in dispute is shortly as follows: It originally belonged to a man called Dulli; and here we may mention that it is not contended that Than Chand ever owned this property or indeed any share in this village. One Sheikh Muhammad Sharf-ud-din had a decree against Dulli, and the property was put up for sale in execution of this decree. I...
Tag this Judgment!Jas Kunwar Vs. Pema
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All527
Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises arc as follows: Mohan Singh was the owner of some zamindari property. He had three sons, Prem Singh, Gaila and Pema. Prem Singh died in the life-time of his father, leaving surviving him a widow, Musammat Jas Kunwar (plaintiff respondent). After the death of Mohan Singh, his property was recorded in the names of Gaila, Musammat Jas Kunwar and Pema. Subsequently Gaila died and the names of his widow and sons were recorded in the khewat instead of his own name. On the 13th of November, 1911, Musammat Jas Kunwar instituted a suit in the Revenue Court for imperfect partition in respect of a one-third share of the property which had originally belonged to Mohan Singh, stating in her plaint that she was 'the owner, zamindar and co-sharer of one-third out of one-fourth share in the holdings bearing khewat Nos. 22, 23 and 33 in mauza Nehru,' and was in possession thereof. The reason for seeking partition, she alleged, was becau...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and anr. and Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All524
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. A final decree for sale was obtained under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of certain property. The decree-holder assigned all his rights and interests under the decree to the present respondent by an unregistered deed. The assignee applied to be brought on the record in place of the decree-holder. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtors. After several attempts to serve them personally had failed, substituted service was allowed and an order under Order XXI, Rule 16, was passed in favour of the assignee. The assignee then applied for execution of the decree. Thereupon the judgment-debtors raised an objection that the deed of sale being unregistered, the assignee had no title and therefore could not execute the decree. The courts below, relying on the decisions in Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Faizullah (1890) I.L.R., 13 All., 89 and in Baij Nath Lohea, v. Binoyendra Nath Palit (1901)...
Tag this Judgment!Udit Tiwari Vs. Bihari Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All521
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, whoso suit for recovery of possession was decreed by an Assistant Collector of the Gorakhpur district, but has been dismissed by the District Judge of Gorakhpur on appeal. The question is whether an appeal lay, under the circumstances, to the court of the District Judge. The plaintiff alleged that the land in suit was his occupancy holding and that he had sub-let it to the defendant, whom he now desires to eject by a suit under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act for that purpose. The defendant replied that he was a co-sharer in the mahal and held the land in suit us his khud-kasht. We cannot see that the defendant's title as proprietor was ever denied by the plaintiff. Certainly the latter never claimed to be himself the proprietor of the land in dispute or to have any right in the same, other than the right of an occupancy tenant. Under the circumstances it appears to us impossible to say that a question of propr...
Tag this Judgment!Haribans Rai and ors. Vs. Sri Niwas Naik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All518
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. The facts of this case are these: The appellants and their predecessors in title executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Subba Rai on the 3rd of October, 1887. The mortgage was assigned to Sri Niwas Rai Kalia and others, the respondents. Part of the property mortgaged was in the possession of prior mortgagees and the mortgagors also held mortgagee rights in other property which they included in the mortgage. In regard to these two descriptions of property, it was provided in the mortgage that the mortgagors would redeem the prior mortgage and foreclose the mortgage held by them and then deliver possession to their mortgagee, Subba Rai. The mortgagors complied with the terms of the mortgage so far that they redeemed the prior mortgages and foreclosed the mortgages held by them, but they did not deliver possession to the mortgagee. Thereupon the assignees of the mortgagee brought a suit for possession and obtained a decree, which awarded ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Singh Vs. Ganga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All512
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Revenue Court to recover a sum of money claimed to be payable as arrears of rent under Section 34 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The facts have been very clearly ascertained and are as follows. The plaintiff and the defendant or their predecessors in title were co-sharers. Disputes arose between them, which resulted in an arbitration award and a decree in accordance therewith. Under that decree the plaintiff became entitled to the property in respect of which the present claim is made, notwithstanding that the defendant had previously been in possession and occupation of this particular land. Under the arbitration award and the decree following it the defendant had to give it up to the plaintiff. He did not do so, A suit for his ejectment was then instituted in the Revenue Court. In this suit the defendant was described as a cultivator, but in the body of the plaint the act...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Newaz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All506
Tudball and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government from a decision by the Sessions Judge of Banda, whereby he acquitted one Ram Newaz of the offences of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was committed for trial together with his two brothers, Ram Bharose and Ram Bisal, on a charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He convicted Ram Bharose and Ram Bisal of the lesser offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of murder. He sentenced them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each.2. In regard to Ram Newaz, though he found that he was present and took part in the assault on the deceased, he passed an order of acquittal. Ram Bharose alone appealed against his conviction.3. A Bench of this Court (of which one of us was a member), on the record coming before it, issued notice to bo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »