Allahabad Court June 1916 Judgments
Ganga Dei Vs. Niadar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All676
Walsh, J.1. This case has been thoroughly argued. But really the point is hardly open to discussion. The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendant certain money which has been received by the defendant, in the form of 'rent paid to the defendant through the court under a decree entitling the defendant to receive such rent as against the tenants, but in respect of property of which the plaintiff was entitled to the possession, and also to the receipt of the rents. It is suggested that for such an action the Limitation Act provides one year's limitation by reason of the terms of article 29, that is to say, that it is an action for compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process. It is nothing of the kind. The moment one appreciates the distinction between tort and contract all difficulty disappears. Assuming for a moment that such money can be movable property, it is obvious that it has never been in the possession of the plaintiff at all. Compensation for wr...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Begam Vs. Sarvi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All21; 37Ind.Cas.674
Sundar Lal, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of the execution of a decree made on 31st March 1900, in a suit brought by Musammat Sarvi Begam for her share in the estate of her father Mir Khan Sardar Bahadur. The sons of Mir Khan Sardar Bahadur, his daughters and other heirs were made defendants to the suit. The plaintiff also claimed mesne profits for a period of three years preceding the suit and also future mesne profits. The claim for possession of the property was decreed by compromise, and so also the claim for mesne profits. It was, however, expressly stated in the compromise that the amount of mesne profits would not carry interest. The amount of the mesne profits was to be determined in the execution department. The decree passed in the case embodies the terms of the compromise.2. An application for the determination of the amount of mesne profits was made to the Court below and Mr. David, the then Subordinate udge, determined the amount of mesne profits by his order dated 28...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Chadha Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All371(1); 36Ind.Cas.878
Piggott, J.1. This is an application asking this Court to interfere with an order of the District Magistrate of Allahabad calling upon the applicant to show cause why his prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code should not be directed. For obvious reasons it is a very unusual thing for this Court to interfere in such a matter at so early a stage; but precedent can be shown for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, vide Queen-Empress v. lagan Singh A.W.N. (1892) 102 Presumably this application was admitted because a connected application, by the three persons found guilty at the trial in which the present applicant's evidence was given, was also pending before this Court for disposal. After having gone through the record in connection with the application of Par-manand and others, I am in a position to say without hesitation that no good purpose would be served by the further continuance of the proceedings initiated by the order complained of. The statement in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Singh Vs. Musammat Haidri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: 37Ind.Cas.358
George Knox, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this second appeal was a suit brought by the plaintiff, who is here the appellant, to obtain a declaration that a certain lease, dated the 6th of August 1908, is void as against him. The plaintiff and Slier Singh defendant No. 2 were brothers. They both owned certain plots measuring 38 bighas 16 biswas. An application was made for partition and the partition was sanctioned on the 15th of June 1910. At that time defendant No. 2 was the lambardar and while the partition was still pending, he gave a perpetual lease of the entire plot in favour of one Musammat Haidri defendant No. 1. The major portion of the plots, amounting to 20 bighas 4 biswas, fell at the partition to the share of the plaintiff. He brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of Musammat Haidri. That case was dismissed on 25th March 1912 for default. The appellant then brought the present suit in the Civil Court to obtain a declaration that the lease was inval...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. Jalakia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All859; 37Ind.Cas.343
Piggott, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the following facts:On October 16th, 1893, Musammat Durga mortgaged a certain house to the predecessors-in-title of Musammat Jalakia, the present plaintiff-respondent.Sometime in the year 1907, Musammat Durga again mortgaged the same house to the defendant-respondent Kedar Nath.2. On August 19th, 1910, the plaintiff sued on her mortgage, without impleading Kedar Nath. She obtained a preliminary decree for sale on April 21st, 1911, the defendant mortgagor being allowed the usual period of six months in which to redeem. The decree was made absolute in due course, the house was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff herself on July 30th, 1912.3. In the meantime Kedar Nath filed a suit on his mortgage, without impleading the prior mortgagee. The suit was filed on June 20th, 1911, and decreed on August 13th, 1911, only fifteen days being allowed to the mortgagor in which to redeem. The house was brought to sale under this decree on Febr...
Tag this Judgment!Reoti Singh Vs. Radha Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All488
Chancellor, J.1. It is always to be regretted when an appeal is disposed of on a preliminary point, and the parties are compelled, after having incurred considerable expense to leave this Board without a determination of the real merits of their dispute. But in this case their Lordships feel that they have no choice in the matter, and that they are bound to advise His Majesty that the preliminary point raised must prevail.2. The facts of this case are these: In 1884 a mortgage was executed of certain property for a sum of Rs. 2,000, with interest at 12 per cent. On the 20th of November, 1909, the persons who were entitled to the benefit of that mortgage took proceedings in order to have it enforced. They claimed that the amount due upon the mortgage was Rs. 38,494, and they asked for an order for payment of that sum against the defendant and a sale of the property. They made, as parties to that suit, not merely the people who claimed under the mortgagors but also certain people who had...
Tag this Judgment!Birj Bhukan Lal Vs. Lala Mahadeo Pershad Minor Through Musammat Champa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All308; 35Ind.Cas.205
Walsh, J.1. I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed and that the only question is one of amount. I propose to say very little about the particular facts of this case, leaving it to my brother Mr. Justice Sundar Lal to deal with his great experience with the practical side of the questions which arise. Speaking for myself, so far as I appreciate the attachment proceedings, I have considerable doubt whether the question of limitation could arise, on the simple ground that it seems to me difficult to hold that in an attachment proceeding like this the attaching party was executing his decree. However, I do not think it necessary to come to any final conclusion upon that point. I propose to base my decision upon what occurred in the first Court. Whether there is anything in the limitation point or not I think it is not open to the respondent, having regard to the fact that in the first Court his Pleader stated that he would examine the account and that he had no other objection. A...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Singh Vs. Emperor Through Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All133; 35Ind.Cas.964
Walsh, J.1. In my opinion this order cannot stand. The charge against the accused is a charge of digging up the road, which is apparently a method of stating the way in which the accused according to law has injured the property of the Municipal Board. Unfortunately I have not seen the precise statement of the charge nor the rule made by the Municipal Board under Section 128(a). I entertain no doubt that the drain is Municipal property and vested in the Municipality. No doubt at one time it formed part of the public road. Whether it did or not, neither the applicant nor anybody else has any right to deepen the drain or to alter its construction or to remove any portion of the structure or the bed. If the defendant has done anything of this kind to the drain, it is still open to the Municipality to take proceedings against him for the penalty in a proper proceeding.2. But I have to deal in this case with things as they are and I have to see whether the offence charged is properly made o...
Tag this Judgment!Dulla and anr. Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1917All460; (1917)ILR39All47
Walsh, J.1. In this case one Ram Lal and his mother executed a promissory note. In 1904 a simple money decree was obtained by the creditor against the mother and against the estate of Ram Lal, then deceased or rather against his two brothers Dulla and Dhani Ram, the present plaintiffs, who were sued as representatives of the estate of Ram Lal. After various assignments, which it is not necessary to specify, the present defendant purchased the property in question under the decree in execution proceedings. It is not disputed that, at any rate, in this suit at the time of the sale which took place in execution proceedings, the property which the present defendant bought! was the property of the present plaintiffs, the two minor brothers of Ram Lal, and was not part of the estate of Ram Lal, deceased, that is to say, it was property which the decree-holders could not attach, could not sell, and in respect of which the purchaser obtained no title. In the year 1914 the two plaintiffs, one o...
Tag this Judgment!Rup Chand and anr. Vs. Fateh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All446
Shaw, J.1. In these consolidated appeals it has teen admitted in the argument submitted to the Board by the counsel for the appellant that substantially only one question falls now to be determined. That question has reference to the construction of a will, dated the 18th of September, 1901, of one Musammat Gomti Kunwar. In that document there is a description of the title of the testatrix given in the following words: 'I am the sole owner in possession of his '[her husband's]' entire estate and possess-all the proprietary powers.' Their Lordships note that throughout this will the term thus translated 'sole owner in possession' or 'owner in possession' is malik-o-qabiz.2. Having thus described the property she proceeds to bequeath 'the entire estate of my husband to Fateh Chand.' There is, however, appended to this bequest of the entire estate the subjection of the whole of the estate 'to the following conditions,' and a covenant in writing by herself that she would abide by those con...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »