Allahabad Court November 1914 Judgments
Punna Chandra Mukerji and anr. Vs. Dhone Kristo Biswas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All351(2); 24Ind.Cas.318
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application under Section 22 and 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking this Court to determine whether the suit should proceed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, in which it is pending, or in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur which is subordinate to the High Court at Calcutta.2. In the seventh paragraph of the application it is stated that the petitioners had taken an objection in the Court below to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. This being so, the application cannot be maintained. It is only when a suit may be brought in one or other of two Courts, both of which have jurisdiction, that an application may be made in order that this Court may determine in which of such Courts the suit should proceed. As the jurisdiction of the Benares Court is denied the application cannot be sustained. I accordingly reject it with costs, which will include Rs. 32 as Vakil's fee....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jiwan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All114(2); (1915)ILR37All107
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur suggesting that the commitment of one Jiwan Kahar on a charge under Section 82(A) of the Registration Act for trial in his Court be quashed. The facts are simple. One Musammat Jhabbo died. Musammat Mulo forged a lease of certain land in favour of her own sons, signing the name of Musammat Jhabbo thereto. She then went to the Registration office and personating Musammat Jhabbo presented the document for registration. Jiwan Kahar identified her as being Musammat Jhabbo. The document was registered and returned to Musammat Mulo. Musammat Mulo was placed upon her trial and convicted of the offence of forgery. She was also placed upon her trial and convicted of the offence of cheating the Sub-Registrar. Jiwan was placed upon his trial for aiding and abetting forgery. He was acquitted. He was then placed upon his trial for aiding and abetting cheating. He was convicted by the Magistrate, but acquitted on appeal. Thereupo...
Tag this Judgment!Hub Lal and anr. Vs. Daya Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All105
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were the owners and possessors of certain property and possession.2. It appears that the parties, who are disputing about the estate of one Bhajan Lal, were all members of the same family. In mutation proceedings a family settlement was come to, in consequence of which the plaintiffs were recorded as owners in respect of the property now in suit. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that this arrangement was come to as the result of fraud. The court of first instance found that there was no fraud when the family settlement was entered into, and accordingly the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree.3. The lower appellate court agreed in all the findings of fact of the court of first instance, but, finding that one of the plaintiffs was a minor, it decreed the claim to the extent of the interest to which he would have been entitled had there been no ...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Dat Vs. Anardan Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All10(1); (1915)ILR37All113
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 22nd of March, 1900. Various pleas were taken, but the court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiff and granted a decree. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the order of the court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the sole ground that one Bhaia Lal was the real owner of the bond and that the plaintiff was merely a benamidar for him. It seems to us that the view of the District Judge was not correct. The alleged beneficial owner Bhaia Lal was actually produced as a witness for the plaintiff. He raised no objection whatever to the decree being made in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant never alleged that Bhaia Lal had made any claim, or raised any objection, to the amount of the bond being paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the person named in the mortgage and was clearly entitled to sue, even if he was the benamid...
Tag this Judgment!Gur Bakhsh Singh Vs. Kashi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All110
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an application for revision filed under somewhat peculiar circumstances. In the course of an inquiry in a case of dacoity a statement was made to the investigating police officer implicating one Gur Bakhsh Singh. It appears that Gur Bakhsh Singh was arrested and remained for some period in custody. He was eventually released by the police officer concerned, on the ground that the investigation did not disclose evidence warranting his prosecution. Several persons implicated in the same dacoity were prosecuted to conviction. Gur Bakhsh Singh subsequently applied to the Superintendent of Police for sanction to prosecute Kashi Ram and Baldeo for having given false information to the investigating police officer to his injury, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction was given by the Superintendent of Police, and Kashi Ram and Baldeo were prosecuted to conviction in the court of a Magistrate of the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Jambu Prasad Vs. Muhammad Aftab Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All49; AIR1914PC16(B)
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees, dated the 13th of February, 1912, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, one of which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur of the 26th of September, 1910, and the other of which partly affirmed and partly reversed a decree of the same Subordinate Judge of the 26th of September, 1910. The suits in which the decrees were made were brought in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, one on the 20th of May, 1909, and the other on the 16th of March, 1910. They were suits for sale of immovable property. The suit of 1909 was based on a mortgage-deed of the 10th of August, 1886, the consideration for the mortgage having been Rs. 7,000. The suit of 1910 was based on a mortgage-deed of the 2nd of July, 1882, the consideration for that mortgage-deed having been Rs. 59,000, and upon a mortgage-deed of the 25th of October, 1892. There was in each suit a claim for a money decree. The Subordinate Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Ram and ors. Vs. Het Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All101
Henry Richards and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with the suit out of which this appeal arises are a little complicated, but they nevertheless may very shortly be stated. Tikam Singh made a mortgage in the year 1880 of a village called Kakna. A second mortgage was made in the year 1889 by the same Tikam Singh and five of his sons. A third mortgage was made in the year 1891 by the same Tikam Singh and two of his sons. The village was at that time joint family property. Subsequently the sons of Tikam Singh divided the village into a number of mahals. The mortgagee under the mortgage of 1880 brought a suit against Het Singh, one of the sons, with the result that his mahal was sold and the mortgage discharged. Het Singh brought a suit against his brothers and their children claiming contribution under Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act and obtained a decree. In the meantime, however, the plaintiffs had discharged the two later mortgages and they brought the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Anupa Kunwar Vs. Achhaibar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All97
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.A suit for ejectment brought by Achhaibar Singh and others against Anupa Kunwar in a Eevenue Court came up to this Court in second appeal and was settled in accordance with an arbitration award. The award provided that a decree for possession of the land should be passed in favour of Achhaibar Singh and others, and that Anupa Kunwar should receive from Achhaibar Singh and others eleven maunds odd of grain and Rs. 14 in cash by way of maintenance to be paid in half-yearly instalments. Anupa Kunwar has now applied to the Revenue Court to execute so much of the decree mentioned above as relates to the maintenance payable to her. The Revenue Court being doubtful whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the application has referred this case to this Court under Section 195 of the Tenancy Act. The award, which is incorporated in the decree of this Court, provides that if the maintenance due to Anupa Kunwar is not paid she may enforce payment by taking proceedings in a...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Sahai Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All94(1); (1915)ILR37All99
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover the amount due under a promissory note. A number of pleas were taken, and amongst others a (denial of consideration. The court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Both courts have found that there was good consideration for the note. But the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiff, who is the holder of the note under an assignment, dated the 17th of June, 1912, did not give any consideration for the assignment of the note. It seems to us that this finding was immaterial. Even if we assume the finding to be correct, the defendants, Behari Lal and Nathu Singh, have no concern with the question whether consideration was paid or not paid by the assignee of the note. If they are liable under the note all that they are entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Mal Vs. Hira Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All55; (1915)ILR37All94
Henry Richards, C.J. and Parmada Charan Bannerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that he was entitled to remain in possession of certain property under an alleged zar-i-peshgi lease, dated the 9th of September, 1904. It appears that the document in question was executed by one Lala Behari Lal, the father of the plaintiff, in favour of his son. Musammat Hira Kunwar, the defendant, was one of the co-sharers. Partition proceedings were brought in the Revenue Court and a portion of the property alleged to have been leased fell to the lot of Musammat Hira Kunwar. Thereupon she instituted a suit in the Revenue Court for possession of the plots that had so fallen to her lob and for ejectment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff set up the document of the 9th of September, 1904. The Revenue Court thinking that it was a case to which Section 199 of the Agra Tenancy Act applied, directed Suraj Mal to institute a suit in the Civil Court within three m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »