Allahabad Court December 1914 Judgments
Deo NaraIn Singh Vs. Ganga Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All162
Henry Richard, C.J. and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that a sale-deed, dated the 17th of August, 1909, executed by his father Hansraj Singh in favour of Naurang Singh, the predecessor in title of the defendants, is null and void as against the plaintiff. The validity of the sale is questioned on various grounds. The lower court has dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff was born after the date of the sale and is not, therefore, entitled to question its validity. It has further been found that the plaintiff was in his mother's womb when the sale was made, and it is not disputed for the purposes of this appeal that the property sold is ancestral property. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether a son who was in his mother's womb at the date of an alienation by the father, of ancestral property can contest the alienation. The decision of this question depends...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bishan Prasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All128
Tudball, J.1. The applicant Bishan Prasad has been convicted under Section 185 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100. He made bids at a sale held by the Collector of the right to sell drugs in a certain tahsil and gave a false name. When finally his last bid was sanctioned by the Board of Revenue, he denied that he had ever made any bids at all, and he has accordingly been prosecuted under Section 185 of the Code. The point raised on his behalf is that Section 185 does not contemplate a sale of this description. The language of the section, however, is wide. The right to sell drugs is a monopoly granted for a certain area and comes within the definition of property. It is impossible to hold that the word 'property' in Section 185 is not used in its wide sense. The gist of the offence in the present case was the intention in the applicant's mind not to perform the obligation under which he was laying himself at the time of bidding. The facts having been found aga...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All159
George Knox, Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue authority of these provinces made under Section 57 of Act No. II of 1899. The facts out of which it arises are stated by the Board of Revenue to be that on the 2nd of July, 1912, Raja Shambhu Dial and his brother Babu Brij Kishore executed an instrument, setting forth a family arrangement regarding their joint property. The instrument was taken to the Collector of Cawnpore in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the same Act and was held to be an instrument of partition chargeable with a duty of Rs. 925. This duty was paid. On the 23rd of August, 1912, the two brothers took another instrument before the same Collector for adjudication as to the proper stamp duty to be paid. This instrument provided, inter alia, that the original deed of agreement, namely, that of the 2nd of July, 1912, should remain in force after certain alterations entered into later on. Both deeds were to b...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Mukerji Vs. Afzal Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All1(2); (1915)ILR37All155
Henry Richards and Pramada Charan Benerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of a house. The plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to three fourths of the house whilst the defendants were entitled to one fourth. The court below, without going into the merits of the case, held that the suit is not maintainable upon the ground that there was a previous suit between the plaintiff and the predecessor in title of the defendants for partition of this very house which was dismissed on the 11th of November, 1905, and the plaintiff did not obtain permission to bring a fresh suit. It appears that when the previous suit was instituted the predecessor in title of the defendants agreed to execute a sale deed to the plaintiff of all his rights in the house for the sum of Rs. 5,750. It is admitted on both sides that this agreement was never carried out. The plaintiff says in his plaint that after repeated attempts to get the sale deed executed the predecessor in title of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Raza Khan Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All30; (1915)ILR37All203
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This was a suit for possession by partition of a half share in a small property described as Ihata Nidhan Singh in the city of Koil, and consisting apparently of some waste land and the sites of a few houses.2. The property belonged formerly to two brothers, Nihal Singh and Bhawani Singh. The rights of the former passed to his three grandsons, who in May, 1909, alleging that they were owners of the whole property, sold the whole to the appellant. The appellant admits, however, that by his purchase he acquired only a half share in the property the rights of Bhawani Singh in the other half passed to his son Mathura Prasad, and later in execution of a decree against Mathura Prasad, were sold to two persons who in August, 1909, transferred them to the respondents.3. The appellant's case is that he was in possession of his half share till March, 1911, when the respondents denied his title. The defence was that the appellant or the persons through whom he claims ha...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahir Vs. Neki Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All163; (1915)ILR37All189; 28Ind.Cas.502
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This was a suit by the appellant praying that a decree for money obtained against him by the respondent in Siliguri might be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, and that an injunction might be issued restraining the respondent from executing the same. The appellant alleged that the claim on which the decree rested was totally without foundation, that the respondent had taken steps be prevent the institution of the suit from becoming known to him, and that he knew nothing of it till the 8th of October, 1911, when the respondent caused some of his property to be attached within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Fatehabad in the Agra district. The appellant alleged that a cause of action accrued to him on the 11th of October, at the place where the attachment was effected. The Munsif decreed the claim; but on appeal the District Judge held that the suit was not maintainable at all. He seems to have thought that the whole of the appellant'...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Bahadur Vs. Bindraban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All130; (1915)ILR37All195
Chamier and Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for a declaration has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court as barred by limitation. Debi Das, father of the plaintiff, had two brothers, Jwala Prasad and Prag Das; they lived separately. Jwala Prasad died childless, leaving a widow, Musammat Rukmani. This lady, while in possession of the property of her late husband with a Hindu widow's estate, executed a deed of sale on the 12th of February, 1898, transferring to certain persons, who appear as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the case, a house which bad belonged to her late husband. By the present suit, instituted on the 11th of April, 1913, the plaintiff ' sought a declaration that this sale deed was ineffectual as against him and enforceable only during the life-time of Musammat Rukmani. He impleaded this lady as a defendant, and also his own father Debi Das, and his uncle Prag Das. Only the defendants vendees contested the suit, no appearance being entered...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Vs. Kartik Prasad Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1914
Reported in: AIR1915All133; 29Ind.Cas.59
1. This application for revision arises out of the following facts. An appeal was pending before the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur in which 15th of May 1914 was fixed for hearing. On the 29th of April 1914, the respondent applied under Order XLI, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, that the appellant might be ordered to furnish security for the costs of the first Court and of the Appellate Court before the appeal was heard. The Subordinate Judge passed an English order to the effect that notice should go to the appellant to appear before the Court on May the 14th, 1914, and to show cause why he should not be required to furnish security to the amount of Rs. 150 before the appeal was allowed. No sufficient cause being shown, an order was passed requiring security in the sum named to be furnished on the following day. This order was not complied with and the appeal was thereupon dismissed without having been heard on the merits. There had been one irregularity in the proceedings, in that the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Stamp Reference by the Board of Revenue
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All177(1); (1915)ILR37All125
George Knox, Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. In reply to our order dated the 8th of July, 1914, the Secretary to the Board of Revenue sends us a sample form of mortgage under Section 6A of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act and adds that there are no sample forms under Section 6(6). We understand from this reply that the reference made to us does not refer to a particular deed in existence, but to some deed which may or may not hereafter come into existence. Section 56 of the Stamp Act confers upon this Court power to deal with instruments which are already in existence' and which have been made the subject of action by the Collector acting under Sections 31, 40 and 41 of Act No. II of 1899. The Board have sent on the reference under Section 57 of the above named Act. Comparing the language of Section 56 with that of Section 57 we are of opinion that Section 57 contemplates a decision being given under circumstances and upon documents of the same nature as those referred to in Section 56 ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All127
Goerge Knox, J.1. The learned Judge in making this reference appears to have overlooked the provisions of Clause (7) of Section 845 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This forbids the composition of an offence being accepted except as provided by Section 345.2. Section 345 specially allows a case in which an appeal is pending to be opened to composition with the leave of the court before which the appeal is to be heard, but in it there is no mention of cases which come up on revision, and similarly there is no provision made in Section 439 of the Coda as to applying the powers granted in Section 345 to cases in revision. The recommendation of the Judge, therefore, cannot be accepted. The accused person must submit to arrest and complete the sentence imposed upon him when he was convicted.3. Let the record be returned....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »