Allahabad Court November 1917 Judgments
Sheo Prasad Singh Vs. Premna Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All122
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that an appeal does not lie. The facts are these. The property of the appellant, who was judgement-debtor to a decree, was sold by auction. He made an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity and fraud, in the publication and conduct of the sale. His application was allowed by the court of first instance; but on appeal to the lower appellate court that court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application. From the order of the appellate court the present appeal has been filed. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sub-section (2), provides that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under the section. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) provides that an appeal shall lie from an order made under Rule 3 from which an appeal is expressly allowed by the rules Order XLIII, Rule (1), Claus...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad Singh Vs. Musammat Premma Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All209(2); 43Ind.Cas.522
1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that an appeal does not lie. The facts are these:The property of the appellant, who was judgment-debtor to a decree, was sold by auction. He made an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity and fraud in the publication and conduct of the sale. His application was allowed by the Court of first instance but, on appeal to the lower Appellate Court, that Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application. From the order of the Appellate Court the present appeal has been filed. Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sub-section (2), provides that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under the section. Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) provides that an appeal shall lie from an order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by the rules. Order XLIII, Rule (1), Clause (i), expressly provides an appeal from an order unde...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All244; 43Ind.Cas.525
George Knox, J.1. With reference to the three pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal in this case, the third may be at once omitted inasmuch as the lower Appellate Court clearly says that it believes and acts upon the evidence given on behalf of the respondents. It cannot, therefore, be said that the decree is based purely upon conjecture.2. No argument has been addressed to me on the first plea.3. With regard to the second plea that the lower Appellate Court has acted illegally in wholly ignoring and not considering the voluminous documentary evidence, consisting of village papers and deeds which conclusively negative the theory of exchange, put forward by the defendants, merely because the Court has not made any observation upon this evidence, is not sufficient to satisfy me that the Court wholly ignored and did not consider it. The Court, as I said previously in this judgment, has believed and acted upon the evidence given by the respondents, and the finding is a finding of fact wh...
Tag this Judgment!Champat Singh Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All331; 43Ind.Cas.632
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. The suit was instituted in the year 1915 and was a suit to realise the amount of a mortgage. One of the defendants was Champat Singh for himself and as guardian for certain minors. The 17th of September was fixed to settle issues. On the 13th of August 1915 the process-server went to the house of Champat Singh and found him not at home. He was told that he had gone to bathe. This service was not sufficient and a fresh date, namely, the 27th of November, was fixed. On the 28th of September the process-server again went and learnt that Champat Singh was not in the house, that he had gone to another village and was expected back in a couple of days. The process-server then affixed the process to the door of Champat Singh's house. No order seems to have been obtained by the plaintiff from the Court as to whether or not this service was to be declared good. The case was called on the 27th of November, Champat Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Harris
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All119
Knox, J.1. Harris has been convicted under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code of criminal misappropriation of property. The judgement under which he has been convicted says that the property misappropriated is a letter which is on the record and which is marked Exhibit B. This is the only property regarding which any decision is to be arrived at in this appeal. Exhibit B is a letter which undoubtedly does no credit to the person who wrote it and would have been far better unwritten. But with that I am not concerned in the present appeal. I have only to decide the questions (1) whether the said letter is property within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, (2) if it is property, whether it has been criminally misappropriated by Harris. The letter is admitted to be a letter addressed to Williamson, the complainant in the present case. It is also admitted that this letter first came into evidence, so far as this case is concerned, in a room occupied by Harris within the house in which ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashbey Clarke Harris Vs. Emperor Through Williamson
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.590
George Knox, J.1. Harris has been convicted under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code of criminal misappropriation of property. The judgment under which he has been convicted says that the property misappropriated is a letter which is on the record and which is marked Exhibit B. This is the only property regarding which any decision is to be arrived at in this appeal. Exhibit B is a letter which undoubtedly does no credit to the person who wrote it and would have been far better unwritten. But with that I am not concerned in the present appeal. I have only to decide the questions: (1) whether the said letter is property within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code, (2) if it is property, whether it has been criminally misappropriated by Harris. The letter is admitted to be a letter addressed to Williamson, the complainant in the present case. It is also admitted that this letter first came into evidence, so far as this case is concerned, in a room occupied by Harris within the house in...
Tag this Judgment!Habib-ullah Vs. Manrup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All228
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The essential facts out of which these two appeals arise are as follows:--One Mahadeo, an occupancy tenant, executed, on the 7th of July, 1914, three mortgage-deeds, one in favour of Sarup and Manrup and the other two in favour of Ram Jas and Ram Phal. The deeds in question purported to give the aforesaid mortgagees possession of plots of land forming part of Mahadeo's occupancy holding. One plot was given in the first mentioned mortgage and six more plots were added in the other two. After executing these documents Mahadeo refused to get them registered, and eventually the mortgagees were driven to institute a regular suit in order to obtain registration. When this suit was instituted Mahadeo declined to contest it, and it was decreed against him on his own confession, so that registration was at last effected in the month of July, 1915, almost one year after execution. We must take it, however, on the findings of the courts below that possession had at once b...
Tag this Judgment!Masha Allah Khan and ors. Vs. Salamat-uz-zamIn Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All187
Walsh, J.1. The facts of this case as found in both courts are simple, but the question of law is one of some importance. By a duly registered sale-deed, the defendant, Musammat Salamat-uz-Zamin, about the 14th of August, 1905, sold and transferred to one Muhammad Ali Jan Khan (inter alia) the two and half biswansis of land now in suit. On the same date Muhammad Ali Jan Khan by another duly registered sale-deed, sold and transferred to Musammat Salamat-uz-Zamin (inter alia) a certain shop in Bulandshahr. The value of the shop on the said date has been found to have been Rs. 125, and the value of the land now in suit has been found to have been Rs. 100. Shortly after these two sale-deeds, Muhammad Ali Jan Khan and the defendant verbally agreed to re-transfer or to exchange these two properties which each had thus purchased from the other, and each remained in possession of what had originally been transferred by the deeds. Neither purchaser had any property in the district in which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Habeeb Ullah Vs. Manrup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All292; 43Ind.Cas.514
1. The essential facts out of which these two appeals arise are as follows: One Mahadeo, an occupancy tenant, executed on the 7th of July 1914 three mortgage-deeds, one in favour of Sarup and Manrup and the other two in favour of Ram Jas and Ram Phul. The deeds in question purported to give the aforesaid mortgagees possession of plots of land forming part of Mahadeo's occupancy holding. One plot was given in the first mentioned mortgage and six more plots were added in the other two. After executing these documents Mahadeo refused to get them registered and eventually the mortgagees were driven to institute a regular suit in order to obtain registration. When this suit was instituted Mahadeo declined to contest it and it was decreed against him on his own confession, so that registration was at last effected in the month of July 1915, almost one year after execution. We must take it, however, on the findings of the Courts below that possession had at once been given to the mortgagees o...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad and anr. Vs. Shambhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All380; 43Ind.Cas.650
Tudball, J.1. This is an execution second appeal. The facts are simple. A simple money decree was obtained by the appellant against the respondent. In execution of that decree he has applied for the attachment and sale of what is commonly known as birt jijmani. The Court of first instance allowed the application. The lower Appellate Court has disallowed the application, holding that such a right is not attachable and cannot be sold in execution of a decree. The decree holder appeals. On his behalf it is urged, and for the purposes of this decision it may be assumed to be correct, that in the eyes of Hindu Law hirt rijmam is immoveable property, Attention has been called to the decisions in Sukh Lal v. Bishambhar 37 Ind. Cas 661 : 15 A.L.J. 41 : 39 A. 196, Raghoo Pandey v. Kassy Parey 10 C. 73 : 5 Ind Dec. (N.S ) 51 : 13 C.L.R. 263 : 8 Ind. Jur. 197, Krishnabhat v. Kapabhat 6 B.H.C.R.A.C. 137, Balvantrav v. Purshotam Sidheshvar 9 B.H.C.R 99. In all these cases, which are cases of volunt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »