Allahabad Court July 1914 Judgments
Ganga Sahai and ors. Vs. Shib Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All407(2); 25Ind.Cas.499
George Knox, J.1. Pundit Sheo Charan, respondent in this second appeal, was plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He there sued for the removal of a chabutra which, he said, had been made by the defendants on his land and also for an injunction on the defendants forbidding them to pass over the land covered by the chabutra. The chabutra in dispute will be found set out on a map which is on the record. It is that portion which is coloured pink. It will be observed from the map that the portion coloured pink stands in front of the house of the plaintiff. The boundary line separating the plaintiff's house from the defendants' house cuts right along the limit of the chabutra marked A B. The defendants, now appellants, have a similar chabutra running along the front of their house and it is coloured yellow. The defendants allege that their boundary extended one foot north of the house and that so far as that one foot north was concerned, the chabutra was on their land. With reference to...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyed Abul Hasan and anr. Vs. Saiyed Aziz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All894; 25Ind.Cas.661
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that certain sale-deeds and leases should be declared null and void and cancelled and that the plaintiffs or some other persons should be appointed mutwallis to manage the property specified in the plaint and therein called Mauza Satpura, Perganah Bilram, and that the defendants of the third party should be dispossessed. There is a further prayer that the defendants of the second party should be removed from their office as mutwallis.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the District Judge under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is alleged that the property in question. was dedicated to the expenses of the tomb of one Salah-ud-Din Chisty, that the plaintiffs and the defendants of the first and second party were the descendants of the saint, that the defendants of the second party had made the leases and sale-deeds in contravention of the trust and had thereby proved themselv...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Gowri Vs. Gopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.503
1. We think that this is a suit which ought never to have been brought. The plaintiffs' right to the property would only arise after the death of the original defendant, Musammat Badamo (who has, as a matter of fact, died during the progress of the litigation) and her daughter, Musammat Gouri, and all the sons of Musammat Gouri of whom there are apparently four living. In the event of any one of these sons having male issue the plaintiffs' right would probably never arise at all. The deed of gift complained of was not made to a stranger but was made to Musammat Gouri, and in reality amounted to no more than a relinquishment by Musammat Badamo of her life-interest in respect of this part of the property of her deceased husband. It seems to us that the suit can have been brought for no other purpose than to harass and put the defendants to unnecessary expense. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Court...
Tag this Judgment!Jugal Kishore Vs. Musammat Gomti Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All479; 25Ind.Cas.280
Rafique, J.1. The two appeals Nos. 1135 and 1529 of 1913 arise out of a suit brought by Musammat Gomti Kuar against Jugal Kishore. It appears that one Mulchand was a co-sharer in the villages of Mehdi, Husanpur and Dinarpur. He died some time ago leaving him surviving his widow called Musammat Plaunda and a daughter 'named Musammat Dhanwanti. Musammat Plaunda remained in possession of her husband's property up to her death. On her death Musammat Dhanwanti entered in possession and remained in possession till her death in 1907. After her death Khader Mal and Shama Charan succeeded to the estate of Mulchand as his reversioners. They executed a deed of sale in favour of Beni Lal and Ramcharan Lal in respect of the estate of Mulchand. On the 27th of March 1911 the purchasers instituted the suit out of which these two appeals have arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Aoula Faridpur against Jugal Kishore. It was alleged in the plaint that Jugal Kishore used to realize rents of Mehdi, Hasanpu...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.508
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage, dated the 8th of January 1895. The suit was not instituted until the 5th of August 1910, that is to say, just about the time when the special period of limitation allowed by the Act of 1908 was on the eve of expiring. The defendants raised the plea that there was a defect of parties. It appears that the original mortgagees were two persons, Baij Nath and Badri Prasad. Baij Nath had died leaving three daughters. Badri left four sons. The sons of Badri were parties' to the suit, but the daughters of Baij Nath were not. The Court of first instance found that Baij Nath and Badri were separate and that accordingly the daughters of Baij Nath were necessary parties, the suit was defective and it could not be cured because limitation had expired before the application to add parties was made. The lower Appellate Court reversed this decision. While it agreed with the Court of first instance that Baij Nath and Badri were separate, it hel...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Dayal and ors. Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.531
Rafique, J.1. The two appeals Nos. 1514 and 1515 of 1912 are connected. They arise out of two suits brought by Lala Debi Prasad for arrears of rent against 2 sets of tenants. One of the pleas in defence was that Lala Debi Prasad being only one of the co-sharers could not sue alone for the recovery of the arrears of rent. The plea was based upon the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. The Courts below disallowed the said plea and decreed the claims. In the two appeals before me the only ground urged is that the lower Courts were in error in not giving effect to the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. It was decided in a case between Debi Prasad and some of the co-sharers that the tenants-defendants in the present suits were the tenants of all the co-sharers. The language of Section 194 of Act II of 1901 is clear. One of the several co-sharers cannot sue alone unless there is a local custom or special contract to the contrary. No such local custom or special contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Vayas Vs. Sri Thakur Rash Behariji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All493; 25Ind.Cas.271
George Knox, J.1. This application for revision of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Agra and dated the 9th of December 1913 arises out of a suit brought by one Ram Nath Vayas. In the plaint the defendants are described as Sri Thakur Rash Bihariji Maharaj, enshrined in a temple known as the Tareora Temple, situated in Bindraban, Mohalla Galibhut, under the Superintendence of Raja Birendra Kishore Manikya of Agartallah Tareora in. Bengal, and (2) Hari Mohan Deb, son of Har Charan Sainapat, a Bengali Brahman at present residing in Bhutwali Gali, Bindraban, Pargana Muttra, defendants.2. The suit was originally institued in the Court of the Additional Munsif of Muttra. It was a suit to recover Rs. 90, together with costs et cetera from the defendant No. 1 as the viutwalli and manager of the temple of Sri Thakur Rash Bihariji Maharaj. There was a prayer in the plaint that if for some reason or other defendant No. 1 be held by the Court to be not liable for the amount due to the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Lal Vs. Karim-un-nissa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All408; (1915)ILR37All12
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The history of this unfortunate case is told in the Judgment of the lower appellate court. The litigation, which was really of a very simple nature, commenced in the year 1906. After various vicissitudes it came before Mr. Holme, District Judge of Allahabad. He decided in his Judgment all the questions between the parties, and all that can be taken exception to is the last line of his decree, dated the 30th of March, 1912. The proceedings originally were brought under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, which provides that at any time during the continuance of a tenancy either the land-holder or the tenant may sue for a declaration as to any of the matters therein set forth, class (d) 'the rent payable in respect of the holding and whether payable in cash or kind.'2. The learned District Judge was unable to say what the rent payable in respect of certain lands was, because no rent had ever, in fact, been fixed either by agreement of the parties or by t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Racha Dube and ors. Vs. Gokul Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All468; 25Ind.Cas.201
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by certain defendants in a suit for ejectment. There were three parties to the litigation namely, the plaintiff Gokul Rai, Gaya Singh and others, described as the defendants of the first party, and Ram Racha Dube and others, described as defendants of the second party. It is these last who are the appellants now before this Court. The defendants of the first party mortgaged their zemindari rights in a certain 4-anna share in village Mahrauli to the plaintiff under a contract of mortgage by conditional sale. They subsequently mortgaged certain specified plots of sir land, alleged to appertain to the share in question, with possession to the defendants of the second party. The plaintiff sued on the mortgage and obtained ' a foreclosure decree under which he was put into possession on the 4th of July 1904. He has nevertheless been successfully prevented by the defendants between them from getting the benefit of his decree so far as the sir lands are c...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Govind Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All20
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate of Meerut, dismissing an appeal against an order of a magistrate of the second class of the same district requiring the applicants to give security for their good behaviour for one year. The first point taken is that the second class magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It appears that the proceedings against the applicants were instituted by a magistrate of the first class, and that this Court, on application made to it, transferred the case from the Court of that magistrate to the District Magistrate with instructions to make it over to some other magistrate, subordinate to him, competent to try it. The District Magistrate then made over the case to Captain Noel, a magistrate of the second class. Under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court had power to transfer the case to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, could not hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »