Allahabad Court April 1916 Judgments
Umrao Singh Vs. Chheda Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All249; 35Ind.Cas.262
1. This is a reference from the Local Government under the Kumaun rules. The defendants, who are residents of a village called Jaspur, were also proprietors in village Mandua Khera. In this village they owned a dera, or house of business, appertaining to which were certain outhouses, one of them a rathkhana or carriagehouse, others certain buildings described as stables and godowns. By a deed of sale the defendants purported to transfer to the plaintiff the whole of their proprietary rights in village Mandua Khera, and in the same deed of sale they expressly specified the dera and buildings appertaining thereto as included in the property transferred to the plaintiff. It would seem that the plaintiff had considerable difficulty in obtaining actual possession over the buildings purported to be conveyed to him. He brought a suit in which he claimed possession of the buildings appertaining to the said dera, or at any rate some of them. In this suit he was successful on first appeal, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Harpal Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.173
Walsh, J.1. In this case the defendant mortgaged certain property for Rs. 500 on 12th September 1898 to the plaintiff.2. The property consisted of certain occupancy holdings.3. The plaintiff lived some distance away and the rents were collected for him by an uncle, who died in the year 1906.4. After that date the defendant collected the rents and thereby became possessed of the property.5. That was an actionable wrong which took place seven years before the commencement of the suit.6. The plaintiff in 1913 sued for and recovered possession, and that part of the judgment of the first Court is not contested.7. The plaintiff also claimed the rents received by the defendant from the mortgaged property from time to time during the last three years immediately preceding the suit.8. It cannot be denied that the defendant's possession has throughout been wrongful. He had no shadow of right to take the rents, and each time that he took them he was putting in his pocket money which under the con...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bechan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All457; 36Ind.Cas.879
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In this case six men were placed on their trial before a Magistrate of the first class at Benares, the allegations against them being that they had been jointly concerned in carrying on a systematic swindle in the course of which they had committed sundry offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Three of these offences committed in the course of a single year (as a matter of fact in the course of a much narrower interval) were selected, and the prosecution was limited to these. The Joint Magistrate framed three charges each against the entire body of accused, and he proceeded to try all of them at one and the same trial in respect of all these offences, found all the accused guilty, and passed what he considered appropriate sentences. Four of the persons convicted appealed to the Sessions Judge, who has held the trial in the Magistrate's court to be bad in law. He has accordingly ordered a re-trial of the whole body of accused separately ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jagardeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All369; 36Ind.Cas.873
Piggott, J.1. In this case one Jagardeo was tried at one trial in respect of two acts of theft committed in the course of the same night. It was alleged that he stole bajra from one man's field and rice from the field of another. He appealed to the Court of Session, and there the learned Sessions Judge, holding that the trial was illegal, has directed him to be re-tried. The case has been brought to our notice and we have taken up the matter in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. It is said that there is authority of this Court in favour of the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. The case of Empress of India v. Murari 4A. 147 : A.W.N. (1881) 155 was decided on a differently worded section of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1872. If it is necessary to say so, we are quite prepared to say that that decision should no longer be regarded as laying down the law as it stands under the Criminal Procedure Code at present in force. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have apprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Prag NaraIn Vs. Chaubey Prag NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All432; 35Ind.Cas.198
1. We think that the decision of the Court below in this case is correct. The suit was brought to recover two sums of money, namely Rs. 1,478-2-4 and Rs. 3,202-7-3, from the defendants. The circumstances under which the suit was brought were these. On the 15th of November 1899, Chaubey Prag Narain and Chaubey Bishambhar Nath, defendants, and Jwala Prasad the father of Kirpa Shanker, defendant, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. They executed other mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee. Subsequently in the year 1900, the mortgagors took a lease of the mortgaged property from the plaintiff. The rent payable under the lease not having been paid, suits were brought on the basis of the mortgages to enforce payment of the money secured by them. Theses suits were compromised on the 15th of April 1908, and by the 'compromise it was agreed that the amount due upon the mortgages was to be paid with interest in five years; that the interest was to be payable in half ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Dayal Pande Vs. Chander Deo Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All805; 36Ind.Cas.991
Lindsay, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has sprung was one for redemption, and the sole question for determination, here is whether the parties stood in the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee so as to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit.2. The facts are that on the 16th September 1867 Ajodhia Pande, the father of the plaintiff-appellant, executed a sale-deed conveying the property in suit to Biseshar Pande who is now represented by the defendants. In this document which is described by the executant as a deed of absolute sale (bai la kalami), it was stated that the vendor being in need of money had sold the property for a sum of Rs. 400. It was further recited that the purchase-money has been received and that the vendee had been put in possession. On the same date a second document, viz., an agreement (iqramama) was executed by the purchaser in favour of the vendor. After referring to the sale which had taken place, this deed went on to say that if at any time the vend...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Hafizullah Khan and ors. Vs. Chithru Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.1001
Lindsay, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit in ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs was that they were zemindars in Mauza Para Kamal and that the defendants were only tenants (riaya) It was alleged that in January 1912 the defendants had without the plaintiffs' leave erected a new tiled house and chabutra on a waste plot of land No. 1103 included within the abadi area It was alleged that the plaintiffs remonstrated with the defendants and objected to their making these constructions but without success and it was therefore prayed that possession might be awarded to the plaintiffs by demolition of the house and the chabutra.2. The defence was that the house and chabutra had been put by the defendants in the exercise of their right that the buildings had been constructed much earlier than January 1912 and that the plaintiffs had no right to eject them. The first Court dismissed the suit entirely In appeal the District Judge modified the first Court's decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Niddha Lal and ors. Vs. the Collector of Bulandshahr and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All434; 35Ind.Cas.209
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage, dated the 12th of January 1892, executed by Shankar Lal in favour of Ram Sarup, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs-respondents. The mortgage was executed in lieu of money due upon two decrees obtained against Shankar Lal by Ram Sarup. The appellants are the sons and a grandson of Shankar Lal and their contention in the Court below was that the debt was not one for which the family property could be rendered liable. They raised various other pleas denying the genuineness of the bond, denying consideration and also denying the validity of the amount of consideration. The Court below has decreed the claim. The main contention in this appeal is that the decree which formed part of the consideration for the bond was a decree for money embezzled by Shankar Lal and that, therefore, this part of the consideration was tainted with immorality and is not binding on the appellants. On the face of it part of the consideration was an...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Sahu Vs. Rajah Ratan Sen Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All253; 35Ind.Cas.239
1. These two appeals, First Appeal from Order No. 78 and Second Appeal No. 647 of 1915, have arisen out of certain proceedings in an appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur and Basti.2. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant Ram Sarup Sahu brought a suit for possession against the defendant. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, who framed eight issues and came to findings on every one of them. As the result of the trial by the first Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The appeal came before the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpore and Basti. After hearing the case submitted to him by the plaintiff-appellant he passed an order which purported to be under Order XLI, Rule 28, of, the Code of Civil Procedure, that is, he set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and sent the case back for trial on the merits with directions to admit any further evidence which the parties might desire to produce. When he came to draw up the remand order he put upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Sahdeo Ojha and ors. Vs. Musammat Lachhmina Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.207
1. This is an appeal against an order passed on appeal by the District Judge of Ghazipur. The appeal before the lower Court arose out of a suit for redemption originally brought by one Ram Lochan, who died during the pendency of the suit and was succeeded by his widow Lachhmina Kuar. It is necessary for the decision of the case to refer with some particularity to the contents of the plaint. In the first paragraph of the plaint it was alleged that the defendants were the mortgagees of certain property which had been mortgaged by one Bhinik Ojha, the ancestor of the plaintiff. In the second paragraph of the plaint various particulars of this mortgage transaction were set out. It was recited that the date of the mortgage was 50 years before suit; the names of the parties to the transaction were given and with regard to the amount of the mortgage-money it was stated that the plaintiff was not personally aware of the amount of the mortgage, because the defendants refused to show him the mor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »