Allahabad Court March 1916 Judgments
Musammat Ramanandi Vs. Chhajju Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All271; 35Ind.Cas.241
Piggott, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are somewhat complicated; but the essential points for determination admit of being briefly stated. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent was one for a declaration of his proprietary rights in respect of certain property. His title was based upon a pre-emption decree obtained by one Krishna on the 2nd of November 1887, under which he obtained possession on the 2nd of April 1888. He then executed a formal mortgage with possession in favour of certain persons who were tenants of the land in question. Neither he nor his mortgagees made any attempt to have their rights, other than the tenant's rights of the mortgagees, recorded in the village papers. The name of Ganga Ram, the original proprietor whose sale of the property bad furnished a cause of action for the pre-emption suit, continued to remain recorded in the village papers. When Ganga Ham died, his widow applied for mutation of names in her favour, and this was allowed. Thereup...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Bindeshri Pershad Chand and anr. Vs. Babu Girdhar Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All423; 34Ind.Cas.91
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed possession of a 2-annas share in the village of Gopalpur, in the alternative the plaintiffs claimed a decree for Rs. 764 to be realised by the sale of an 8-annas share in the village in the hands of the defendant No. 2. It appears that the plaintiffs and a, brother of theirs owned an 8-annas share in the village. The remaining 8-annas were held by one Debi Dayal Singh. The revenue of this particular village had been assigned to the jagirdar of Sikriganj by the Government. The jagirdar obtained a simple money-decree against the plaintiffs, their brother and Debi Dayal Singh. In execution of this decree the decree-holders attached the whole 16-annas of the village. In the meanwhile Debi Dayal sold his 8-annas to the defendant No. 1. Then 4-annas out of 16-annas were put up for sale in order to satisfy the decree. These 4 annas were also purchased by the defendant No. 1. The sale to the defendant No. 1 of the 8-annas is d...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Maruf and ors. Vs. Sultan Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All207; 34Ind.Cas.344
Piggott, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in an execution case. One of the questions raised in the litigation was in respect of certain land on which the defendants had constructed a thatched shed and cattle-troughs. The first Court--the Additional Munsif of Azamgarh--gave the plaintiffs a declaration of title in respect of their land, but refused to order the demolition of these constructions. On an appeal by the plaintiffs the District Judge of Azamgarh modified the decree of the first Court in their favour. He gave them joint possession of the plot of land on which stood the thatched shed and cattle-troughs, and ordered the demolition of these constructions. The defendants appealed to this Court, and obtained a decree setting aside the decree of the District Judge and restoring that of the Additional Munsif. The plaintiffs challenged this decree by an appeal under Section 10 of the Letters Patent, but their appeal was dismissed.2. Nevertheless the plaintiffs are now seeking to ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lal Bihari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All393
Piggott, J.1. A very similar case to this was recently before this Court, vide Sarwan v. Emperor (1916) 14 A.L.J. 279. The question of course is how far the procedure of a court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal summarily can beheld to be reasonably applicable to appeals under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I take it to be settled law that a court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal summarily is not bound to write a judgement. This Court has, however, always maintained a right to interfere, in the exercise of its discretion, where there was reason to suppose that the appeal had not received fair and adequate consideration. An appeal from an order requiring a person to furnish security to be of good behaviour is certainly distinguishable from an appeal against a conviction in respect of an offence specifically charged, where the only matter for consideration may be the credibility or otherwise of certain direct and positive evidence. I think that in a case lik...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All1897(1); 35Ind.Cas.485
Piggott, J.1. A very similar case to this was recently before this Court, vide Sartvan v. Emperor 33 Ind. Cas. 647 : 14 A.L.J. 279 : 17 Cr. L.J. 67. The question, of course, is how far the procedure of a Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal summarily can be held to be reasonably applicable to appeals under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I take it to be settled law that a Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing an appeal summarily is not bound to write a judgment. This Court has, however, always maintained a right to interfere, in the exercise of its discretion, where there was reason to suppose that the appeal had not received fair and adequate consideration. An appeal from an order requiring a person to furnish security to be of good behaviour is certainly distinguishable from an appeal against a conviction in respect of an offence specifically charged, where the only matter for consideration may be the credibility or otherwise of certain direct and positive evid...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Dayalpuri Vs. Narayan Dutt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All10(2); 34Ind.Cas.26
Walsh, J.1. I do not see my way to interfere in this case. The first point on which the plaintiff relies, namely, that he is entitled to resumption under Section 154 of the Tenancy Act turns to my mind upon a pure question of fact. That question has been determined against him by both the Courts below. The question that remains is, inasmuch as the suit is alternatively for assessment of rent, whether he brings himself within Section 15b of the Tenancy Act. Undoubtedly if he brought himself within Section 156 he would be entitled to assessment of rent. That question depends upon whether the defendants satisfy the conditions of Section 158. As to this point I feel considerable difficulty. The facts are not in dispute. They are clearly set out in the judgments of both the Courts below. The question, I think, really turns upon whether, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, this land can be properly said to have been held by two successors of the original grantee within the meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho Vs. Basanto Kunbi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All226; 35Ind.Cas.252
Walsh, J.1. I have felt some difficulty about this ease, especially the last point urged on behalf of the appellant, namely, the necessity for formal proceedings to set aside the decree for ameans of rent as against the zamindar by the plaintiffs in order to enable them to maintain this suit. The argument, I think, may be accurately stated in this way: inasmuch as the defendant claims title from and through the zamindar, the plaintiffs in order to succeed must get rid of that which conferred upon the zamindar the right to grant the patta which he granted to the defendant-appellant before me. On the other hand, the respondents' argument is that the decree in question is only a decree for arrears of rent. It is not necessary for them to have that set aside if they can show that it was fraudulently obtained as against them. The subsequent proceedings resulting in the actual ejectment, if there was an actual ejectment, are invalid in the eyes of the law and, therefore, cannot be relied upo...
Tag this Judgment!Jagrani Vs. Bisheshar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All366
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property brought by one Musammat Jagrani Misrani. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The court of first appeal Confirmed this decree and a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the second appeal.2. Nirban Dube had three sons, Gulab Dube, Chandrika Dube and Ramphal Dube. Chandrika Dube left him surving his widow and his daughter (the present plaintiff). On the death of Chandrika Dube the name of the widow was recorded, and continued to be recorded up to the time of her death. Ramphal Dube had a son Mulai Dube. The defendants are the sons of Mulai Dube. On the death of the widow of Chandrika Dube disputes arose between Jagrani on the one side and Mulai Dube on the other as to whose name should be recorded.. Apparently Jagrani was claiming that the sons of Nirban Dube were separate, that on the death of her father Chandrika Dube his widow was not only recorded but she was entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jagrani MisraIn Vs. Bisheshar Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All1; 35Ind.Cas.701
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immoveable property brought by one Musammat Jagrani Misrain. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Court of first appeal confirmed this decree and a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the second appeal.2. Nirban Dube had three sons, Gulab Dube, Chandrika Dube and Ramphal Dube. Chandrika Dube left him surviving his widow and his daughter (the present plaintiff). On the death of Chandrika Dube the name of the widow was recorded and continued to be recorded up to the time of her death. Ramphal Dube had a son, Mulai Dube. The defendants are the sons of Mulai Dube. On the death of the widow of Chandrika Dube disputes arose between Jagrani on the one side and Mulai Dubo on the other as to whose name should be recorded. Apparently Jagrani was claiming that the sons of Nirban Dube were separate, that on the death of her father Chandrika JJube his widow was riot only recorded but she was entit...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Autar Shukul Vs. Bhagelu Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All323; 34Ind.Cas.204
Walsh, J.1. In this case the present appellant had 30 days within which to deposit a certain sum of money from the date of the decree in the suit be coming final. Such decree was made on the 18th of August. The other side, being dissatisfied with the decision, applied to the Court for a copy of the decree and judgment in order to enable them to appeal. At that time in such a hurry were they to appeal that the decree against which they proposed to appeal was not even ready. On 22nd August a copy of the judgment was issued to them. On 31st August a copy of the decree was issued to them. There is no provision in the Code or in the rules as to when a decree becomes final. In my opinion the real question for determination in this appeal is, what is the meaning of the word final in the original decree of the Munsif. Under Article 152 of the Limitation Act the respondents before me, that is, the defendants in the suit, had in any case 30 days to appeal from the decree. That 30 days expired at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »