Allahabad Court January 1914 Judgments
Bindesri Pande and ors. Vs. Gokul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All183
Henry Richards, C.J., Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Commissioner of Gorakhpur under Section 195 of Act II of 1901. The plaintiff sued in the Revenue Court to recover possession of a certain plot of land. He alleged that he was the occupancy tenant of the plot in question and that the defendant was his sub-tenant. The defendant pleaded that he was in possession of the plot, not, as the sub-tenant of the plaintiff, but that he was the proprietor and that the plot in question was his khud kasht. The Assistant Collector of the first class decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge held that no question of proprietary title was in issue and that accordingly no appeal lay to him. The memorandum of appeal was returned for presentation to the proper court. It was then presented before the Commissioner, who has made the present reference.2. In our opinion a question of proprietary title was in issue in t...
Tag this Judgment!W.A. Hearsey Vs. Mrs. Eva Forster
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All364; 24Ind.Cas.165
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of the following facts : Mr. W. A. Hearsey directed Mr. R. C. D. Ewing, who was engaged as his legal adviser in connection with certain pending litigation, to address a letter on his behalf to Mrs. Eva Forster. In reply a letter was written by the aforesaid Mrs. Forster containing expressions alleged to be defamatory of Mr. W. A. Hearsey. A prosecution for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was, thereupon, instituted on the complaint of Mr. W. A. Hearsey against Mrs. Forster, and in this prosecution, Mr. R. C. D. Ewing, who is a Barrister-at-Law, appears as Counsel to conduct the case on behalf of the complainant. In so acting, I have no doubt, that Mr. Ewing committed an error of judgment, and that he would have taken a more proper view of his professional obligations if he had declined to accept Mr. Hearsey's brief in this particular case. The result was the introduction of various difficulties and compli...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvi Begam Vs. Taj Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All511(1); (1914)ILR36All181
Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. The appellant Musammat Sarvi Begam purchased at auction the right of Musammat Taj Begam, which amounted to a specified undivided share (136 out of 192 sihams in a certain house. The rest of the house belonged to Musammat Sahibzadi Begam, who is not a party to this proceeding. The judgment-debtor, Musammat Taj Begam, seems to have been endeavouring to obstruct Musammat Sarvi Begam and to prevent he from obtaining effective possession of what she purchased. The court below has ordered possession to he given under order XXI, Rule 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this rule has clearly no application to the facts of the present case. Musammat Sarvi Begam entitled to effective possession of what she purchased, namely, the undivided share belonging to Musammat Taj Begam aforesaid The provisions of order XXI, Rule 95, may be read with those of Order XXI, Rule 35, Clause (2), whenever it is a question of giving effective possession of an undivided share either to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Palat and ors. Vs. Beni Madho
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All184; (1914)ILR36All172
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is a judgment debtor's appeal. The suit was brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 9th of June, 1895. This mortgage was a mortgage of the zamindari rights and also of mortgagee rights. A decree was obtained in 1900. Applications were made from time to time for the execution of the decree, and in the first place apparently the application for execution was limited to an application for sale of the zamindari rights mortgaged. This very probably was the case, because at that time it had been held that mortgagee rights could not be sold in execution of a mortgage decree. In the year 1908 the decree-holder applied for a sale of the mortgagee rights and asked the court executing the decree to put into the sale proclamation a statement to the effect that the mortgagee rights were being sold. Rightly or wrongly, that court decided that the decree did not include the mortgagee rights and refused the application. The decree-holder appe...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Das Vs. Baldeo Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All161
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of a village called Sangrampur. The plaintiff says this village appertained to a temple in mauza Nimnipar in the Ajaigarh State; that the power to appoint a mahant of that temple is vested in the Raja of Ajaigarh, and that the Raja duly appointed him mahant. The appellant pleads that the village in question does not appertain in any way to the temple at Nimnipar; that the Raja has no power to appoint; that he himself was appointed many years ago, upon the death of the last mahant, to the gaddi, which is situate not at Nimnipar but at Sangrampur, the village itself. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff belongs to the Harabhyasi sect, while the gaddi is Charan Dasi, and that accordingly the plaintiff can in no event be appointed to be mahant of this temple.2. The court below has come to the conclusion that the village appertains to the temple, which is situat...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahir Mal and ors. Vs. Indomati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All201
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover a sum of Rs. 6,000 upon foot of a document, dated the 12th of May, 1884. Rs. 7,294 is said to be due, but only Rs. 6,000 is claimed. Extracts of material parts of the document have been set forth in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The document itself is somewhat incorrectly translated at page 4 of the appellant's book. It commences by reciting that the executant had borrowed Rs. 1,000, and then proceeds to refer to certain property. Then there is a covenant to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem in 7 months, and that if the executant failed to pay the amount at the stipulated period, then, in future, interest should be paid at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem. Finally, there is a Clause in which the executant undertakes that until repayment of the amount he will not transfer the property by sale, mortgage, gift or in any other way. There is...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Saran and Dan Kunwar and ors. Vs. Chetan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All139
Henry Richard, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit on foot of a mortgage. The appellant was a subsequent mortgagee of the mortgaged property, and he alleges that he tendered more than the amount which was actually due, and that, therefore, he should he relieved from the payment of interest subsequent to the alleged tender, and alto the costs of the suit. Admittedly the appellant did not deposit sufficient: he only deposited the sum of Rs. 2,346-14-0. The amount found actually due was Rs. 2,513-7-9. The appellant, however, relies upon a letter which he wrote offering to pay Rs. 2,743-3-0. If this letter can be regarded as a good tender, the appellant is entitled to succeed. We are clearly of opinion that the offer by letter was not a good tender within the meaning of Section 84 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is necessary that the money should have been actually produced, unless it could be shown that the person entitled to receive the money had waiv...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan and anr. Vs. MihIn Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All23; (1914)ILR36All158
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs appellants for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by their brother Gopal Das in favour of the first defendant, Mihin Lal, on the 4th of January, 1910, was null and void and not binding on them. They allege that the property comprised in the sale belongs to the joint family, of which they, Gopal Das, their father Hoti Lal, and their grandfather Parbhu Lal, were members, and that Gopal Das had no authority to sell it without the concurrence of the plaintiffs. They further allege that the first defendant induced Gopal Das to make the sale by practising a fraud upon him and did not pay the amount which purported to be the consideration for the sale.2. The court below has found against the plaintiffs. It was of opinion that Gopal Das was the manager of the family and that he sold the property in order to raise money to meet the expenses of the marriage of the...
Tag this Judgment!Sital Prasad and anr. Vs. Prag and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All155
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are admitted. The suit was one for rent. The holding at one time was the sir of the defendants, who were then proprietors. They mortgaged their proprietary rights, and on the same day agreed to pay a rent to the plaintiffs of Rs. 8 per bigha. It is admitted that the rate which an exproprietary tenant, within the meaning of the Tenancy Act, would pay for an exproprietary holding would be Rs. 3-11 odd. Accordingly the rent claimed in the present suit is largely in excess of the rent to which the defendants were entitled as exproprietary tenants to hold the land. The court of first instance dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the agreement to pay an excess rent was contrary to law. The lower appellate court reversed this finding and decreed the suit. A learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal affirming the decree of the lower appellate court. Hence the present appeal...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Stamp References by the Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All137
Knox, Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. After bearing the learned Government Advocate we agree with the Board of Revenue, which has made this reference, that the words 'final order' in Section 2, Clause (15) and Article 45, Clause (c) of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, No. II of 1899, refer to the final order of the lowest court of original jurisdiction empowered to give an order for effecting a partition at the time it is passed. Let this be the answer to the reference made by the Board of Revenue....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »