Allahabad Court May 1920 Judgments
Sujan Singh Vs. Nand Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All25
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal which has arisen out of a mortgage suit on an application by the decree-hold for a final decree. The facts are as follows:Two persons, Hari Singh and Sahib Singh, on the 22nd of June, 1871, created a simple mortgage over the property in suit in favour of one Sujan Singh (not the present respondent). On the 17th of March, 1876, they created another simple mortgage on the property in favour of one Lachcho On the 27th of July, 1878, Sujan Singh sued upon his mortgage without impleading Lachcho, the puisne mortgagee. The property was finally put to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by Rudra Singh, the husband of the appellant, Musammat Nand Kunwar, in May, 1892. Since then she has been in possession thereof. On the 3rd of June, 1911, Musammat Bhawani, daughter of the original puisne mortgagee, and her son brought a suit on the mortgage of 1876. The plaintiffs impleaded the auction purchaser under the sale of 1892 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Vs. Beni Madho Pragwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All20
Piggott and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The parties to this litigation are pragwals, that is to say, members of a certain class of priests, whose occupation it is to receive pilgrims at the sacred confluence of the waters at Allahabad and to assist them in the due performance of the ceremonies attendant on their lathing in these sacred waters, more particularly on the occasion of certain festivals generally revered. The findings of the courts below are in substance as follows. One Sri Kishan was a pragwal carrying on this particular business. He used a flag with a certain emblem, which flag was fixed at the spot where at any particular time he had taken up his post on the river bank, as a means of identification for the benefit of the illiterate pilgrims, a Sort of notice that if they came to the spot indicated by that. flag they would find there Sri Kishan, pragwal, the descendant and, successor by inheritance to the rights of a line of pragwals with whom it had been customary for any particu...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niranjan Tewari Vs. Khanu Rai Alias Srigopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All168; 57Ind.Cas.5
Walsh, J.1. I think this is a plain case. Article 11 of the Limitation Act provides in simple language that the suit must be brought -within one year of an order against the plaintiff on an objection made to the attachment of property attached in execution of a decree. In this case there was an objection by the plaintiff. An order was made against him. He tried to get rid of it on appeal, but failed. Whether it is a good order or whether it is a bad order, or whether it was made upon improper or insufficient investigation, has nothing to do with the case. The Statute of Limitation leaves no loophole. It does not provide that it must be an order made upon what a subsequent Court is pleased to consider sufficient investigation. All it provides is that it must be an order against the plaintiff upon an objection. The very root of the contention of the appellant before me and of the reasoning of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Lal v. Kandh Prashad Narain Singh 6 C.L.J. 36...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Prasad Vs. Parmanand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All128; 57Ind.Cas.589
1. The essential facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: Shammun and Umra were occupancy tenants of certain land at a rent of Rs. 25 per annum. In January 1915 they entered into a contract with one Lala Parmanand, by which they sublet their entire holding to him for a period of five years on certain terms. He paid them down Rs. 200 in advance and in return for this premium he was to have possession of the holding for the period of five years, which is the maximum period limited by Statute, and was thereafter to pay only the annual rent of Rs. 25 to the Zamindars, It is quite true that, in order to keep up the form of a sub-lease, the document further defined that the rent agreed to be paid by the sub-tenant was Rs. 65 annually, Rs. 25 to be paid to the Zamindars and Rs. 40 to the lessors; but it also made it quite clear that the five annual payments of Rs. 40 bad all been made in advance. The lease was in substance a premium lease with an annual rent reserved, the transac...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kunwar and ors. Vs. Sujan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All304; 57Ind.Cas.1006
1. This is a defendants' appeal which has arisen out of a mortgage suit on an application by the decree-holder for a final decree. The facts are as follows :Two persons, Hari Singh and Sahib Singh' on the 22nd of June 1871 created a simple mortgage over the property in suit in favour of one Sujan Singh (not the present respondent). On the 17th of March 1876 they created another simple mortgage on the property in favour of one Lachcho. On the 27th of July 1878 Sujan Singh sued upon his mortgage without impleading Lachcho, the puisne mortgagee. The property was finally put to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by Rudra Singh, the husband of the appellant, Musammat Nand Kunwar, in May 1892. Since then she has been in possession thereof. On the 3rd of June 1911 Musammat Bhawani, daughter of the original puisne mortgagee, and her son brought a suit on the mortgage of 1876. The plaintiff impleaded the auction-purchaser under the sale of 1892 and also the representatives of the...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho Pragwal Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All316; 59Ind.Cas.873
1. The parties to this litigation are Pragwals, that is to say, members of a certain class of priests, whose occupation it is to receive pilgrims at the sacred confluence of the waters at Allahabad and to assist them in the due performance of the ceremonies attendant on their bathing in these sacred waters, more particularly on the occasion of certain festivals generally revered. The findings of the Courts below are in substance as follows: One Sri Krishen was a Pragwal carrying on this particular business, He used a flag with a certain emblem, which flag was fixed at the spot where at any particular time he had taken up his post on the river bank as a means of identification for the benefit of the illiterate pilgrims a sort of notice that if they came to the spot indicated by that flag they would find there Sri Kishen Pragwal, the descendant and successor by inheritance to the rights of a line of Pragwals with whom it had been customary for any particular pilgrim and his family for ge...
Tag this Judgment!Har Gobind Vs. Daulatia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All18
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of a single Judge of this Court. The facts are simple. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit in the Revenue Court trader Sections 63 and 58 of the Tenancy Act, seeking to eject; the defendants appellants from certain land, alleging himself to be the tenant in-chief and the defendants to be sub-tenants. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were co-tenants with the plaintiff in the land and that they were not sub-tenants nor were they liable to ejectment at his instance. The court of first instance decided in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then went In appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge on the facts Same to the opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the first court and gave the plaintiff a decree, The defendants appealed to this Court and they raised the point that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as under the law ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh and ors. Vs. Arjun Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All232(2); 57Ind.Cas.84
1. This is an application in revision from an order in appeal reversing a conviction and fine inflicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. To out a long story short, it is the climax of a long controversy between some high class Brahmins in a village in the District of Dehra Dun on the one side and some persons in the same village who call themselves 'Rahtia Sikhs' who have settled there in order to engage in trade, having removed from the Punjab, who are regarded as Chamars or 'untouchables' by the other side and as persons unable to supply themselves with water from the village well without defiling it and injuring the feelings of the high class people who want to use it.2. The case took the form of a complaint, dated the 16th May 1919, in the Magistrate's Court of Dehra by certain of these Rahtia Sikhs, who are also Arya Samajists, against one Arjun Dutt, a Brahmin, for having stated in his evidence in a previous case relating to the well that the complainants were 'Chamars...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatia and ors. Vs. Hargobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All290; 57Ind.Cas.206
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of a single Judge of this Court. The facts are simple. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit in the Revenue Court under sections 63 and 53 of the Tenancy Act seeking to eject the defendants-appellants from certain land, alleging himself to be the tenant-in chief and the defendants to be sub tenants. The defendants contested the suit, on the ground that they were co tenants with the plaintiff in the land and that they were not subtenants nor were they liable to ejectment at his instance. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the defendants and dismissed the suit The plaintiff then went on appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge on the facts Game to the opposite conclusion to that arrived at by the first Court and gave the plaintiff a decree. The defendants appealed to this Court, and they raised the point that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as under the law no appeal lay to him. This wa...
Tag this Judgment!Mendya Vs. Jhurya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All668
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The facts of this case may be briefly put. When the present Tenancy Act came into force two persons Ram Ghulam and his uncle, Jhurya, who constituted a joint Hindu family, held an occupancy tenancy as a joint Hindu family. One member of that joint family has died and it is claimed by his widow that she is entitled to inherit his interests under Section 22 of the Tenancy Act. A learned Judge of this Court who heard the appeal held, in view of the ruling' in Mahabir Singh v. Bhagwanti (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 325, that the tenant, i.e., the joint family, not having died, Musammat Mendya, the widow of Earn Ghulam, acquired no interest in the tenure. We are not prepared to dissent from the ruling quoted. We can see nothing in the Act to prevent a joint Hindu family as such acquiring an occupancy tenure. Section 22 lays down the devolution of the interest of an occupancy tenant when the tenant dies. If one member of a joint Hindu family which has acquired an occupan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »