Allahabad Court July 1915 Judgments
Ram Chand Vs. Gaya DIn Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.482
1. In our opinion the Court below is right. A suit was brought under Section 9'2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of certain trustees of a temple. The case WAS compromised and a decree was made in accordance with the compromise, to the effect that Gaya Din should be the manager of the temple and Ram Chand should be the manager of the temple property. It is said that Gaya Din has been declared insolvent and accordingly an application was made to the District Judge to remove Gaya Din from his office of trustee. The learned Judge has, in our opinion, rightly held that no such application could be made in the Miscellaneous Department. If Gaya Din had committed any act which would entail his removal from the office of trustee, the remedy was a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but no application in the Miscellaneous Department could be made for his removal. The Court has no authority to entertain an application of this kind. The learned Vakil for the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Bahadur Vs. Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All395; 30Ind.Cas.568
Chamier, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a co-sharer in a patti of which the defendant is lambardar. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendant for the profits of the years 1313, 1314 and 1315 fastis. That suit was dismissed for default of appearance on the part of the plaintiff under Order IX, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. Some years later the plaintiff brought the present suit against the same person for profits of his share for the years 1316, 1317 and 1318 fastis and he has obtained a decree. Included in those profits are sums recovered during the years in suit in respect of the years 1313, 1314 and 1315 fastis. It is contended that the present suit is barred by Order IX, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, so far as the plaintiff seeks to recover any portion of the rents recovered on account of the years 1313, 1314 and 1315 fastis. In the Court below and here the defendant relied strongly on the fact that in the previous case the plaintiff claimed profits on the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Mahbub Ali Khan Vs. Raghubar Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All423; (1916)ILR39All27; 30Ind.Cas.947
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, The court below has dismissed the claim. The plaintiff adduced, as evidence of the existence of the custom, an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1865. The court below has considered the history of the village. It has also considered the terms of wajib-ul-arz. The language used in the wajib-ul-arz coupled with the history of the village strongly suggests that what was recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1865 was not an existing custom but an arrangement between the co-sharers. We are not prepared to dissent from the view taken by the court below that a custom of pre-emption has not been proved in the present case. There is, however, another matter which we think is fatal to the plaintiffs claim. Since the wajib-ul-arz of 1865 perfect partition has taken place in the village and the plaintiff was not at the time of the sale a co-sharer with the vendor. His property was situate in a separate mahal. There w...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Asghar Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.134
Chamier, J.1. Thin is an application for revision oil an order oil the District Magistrate of Azamgarh dismissing the applicant's appeal against an order of a Magistrate of the 1st class, requiring the applicant to give security for his good behaviour for one year. The evidence against the applicant is of a most unusual character. There is first the evidence of several boys who say that the applicant made indecent overturse to them when they passed his shop on their way to school. Then there is the evidence of some witnesses who say in a general way that the applicant is a bad character. The third class of evidence against the applicant consists of the statements of tradespeople and others living near him who have had trouble with him for one reason or another. The oil-seller, for instance, says that the applicant bought from him. a bottle of oil worth be anna and afterwards refused to pay for it and abased the seller. A butcher says tint the applicant is of a cantankerous nature and i...
Tag this Judgment!Gurprasad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Samajh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All459(2); 31Ind.Cas.876
George Knox, J.1. A copy of the decree appealed against has now been put upon the record. It was filed before this Court on the 30th of July 1915, and I understand that when it was filed there was no explanation supported by an affidavit or otherwise as to the reason why it was filed so long after the time granted in the Indian Limitation Act. The ordinary time for the filing of this appeal expired a few days after the 1st of November 1914. As I have shown in my order of the 25th July 1915, the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed against. It was accompanied by the copy of a decree passed in a case with which apparently it was intimately connected, and the fact that the decree, with one exception to which I shall presently refer, was the same as the decree which was passed in this case allows the inference that though there must have been negligence on the part of those who filed the memorandum of appeal, yet that negligence was one which might easi...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Ram and ors. Vs. Nihal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All336; (1916)ILR39All21; 30Ind.Cas.494
1. This appeal arises out of an application made under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a final decree in a suit for sale upon a mortgage. The preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, was made on the 27th of February 1909. That decree allowed a period of six months to judgment-debtor to pay the amount of the decree, and that period expired on the 26th of August 1909. Meanwhille the judgment-debtor appealed, with the result that the decree of the Court of first instance was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court on the 25th of January 1911, and on second appeal, by the High Court on the 25th of January 1912. Neither the first Appellate Court nor this Court extended time, for payment of the mortgage-money. The present application was made on the 25th of April 1913. It was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtors, that is the mortgagors, that the application was beyond time. This contention was allowed by the Court of first instance and the decision of that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad Rai Vs. Ramanand Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All344(1); 30Ind.Cas.544
1. The first point raised in this and the connected Appeal No. 707 of 1914 is that the suit was barred by limitation. It appears that the plaint was presented within time, but the Court of first instance ordered it to be returned and then it was re-presented in accordance with the decision of the Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. In our opinion the re-presentation of the plaint was a continuance of the suit and, therefore, no question of limitation arises. Upon the merits of the case the findings of the Court below are conclusive against the appellant. The lower Appellate Court says in its judgment that the oral evidence does not satisfactorily prove that the money borrowed was really spent on the repairs, or that the repairs were quite necessary for the preservation of the math building'. This is a finding of fact which must be accepted in second appeal. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, including fees on the higher scale....
Tag this Judgment!Somwarpuri Vs. Suraj Bhan and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All662
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff pre-emptor has been found by both the courts to be a person who was not entitled to purchase the property in question having regard to Section 3 of the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act, 1903, inasmuch as he was not a member of an agricultural tribe. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on this ground. The lower appellate court seems to have considered that the court might make a decree in the plaintiff's favour subject to the consent of the Collector to be subsequently obtained, and remanded the case. We think the view taken by the learned District Judge was not correct. The plaintiff's alleged cause of action was the fact that the vendor being bound by a custom of preemption to first offer the property to the plaintiff, did not do so. We think that the Act, which provides that the property should not be sold to the pre-emptor, entirely absolved the vendor from...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Bhan Vs. Somwarpuri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All419; 30Ind.Cas.949
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff pre-emptor has been found by both the Courts to be a person who was not entitled to purchase the property in question having regard to Section 3 of the Land Alienation Act, II of 1903, inasmuch as he was not a member of an agricultural tribe. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on this ground. The lower Appellate Court seems to have considered that the Court might make a decree in the plaintiff's favour subject to the consent of the Collector to be subsequently obtained, and remanded the case. We think the view taken by the learned District Judge was not correct. The plaintiff's alleged cause of action was the fact that the vendor, being bound by a custom of pre-emption to first offer the property to the plaintiff, did not do so. We think that the Act, which provides that the property should not be soil to the pre emptor, entirely absolved the vendor from any obligation to first offer the property...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mian DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All424; (1916)ILR39All47; 31Ind.Cas.1002
Tudball and Chamier, JJ.1. This is a Government appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate of the first class in. the case of two persons Mian Din and Farid-ud-din who were charged with an offence under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867. The Magistrate passed his order on the finding that the spot where the gambling was taking place was not a 'place' within the meaning of Section 1 or Section 3 of the Act. In Section 1 a common gaming house is defined as 'any house, walled enclosure, room or place in which cards, dice, tables or other instruments of gaming arc kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning, occupying, using or keeping such house, enclosure, room or place' etc. The spot where the gambling is said to have taken place in the present case is the lower end of a bullock-run of a disused well on a bit of open land where there are some trees and a small hut. Round the sides of the bullock-run, in the shape of a semi-cirele, has been raised a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »