Allahabad Court July 1920 Judgments
Hargu Lal and Pahladi Lal Vs. Purshottam Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All198
Walsh and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal, which arises out of two applications made to the execution court, raises several questions. We propose to deal, so far as the decision of the case goes, with one point of law only which in our view is fatal to the appeal. Two applications were made to the court below on the 27th of October, 1919, to set aside a sale or, in other words, to declare that a sale which had been only held provisionally had become void in the events which had happened. There is a difficulty about the application under Order XXI, Rule 90. It is clear that the reason why two applications were made was that a difficulty was felt by the applicants and it was desirable to have an alternative or second string to his bow. The application under Order XXI, Rule 90, i.e, the application 112 C, breaks down by reason of the fact that no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale was alleged or proved and no attempt was made to prove any loss resulting therefrom, and it is...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Parshottam Saran Vs. Lala Hargoolal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All214; 60Ind.Cas.131
1. This appeal, which arises out of two applications made to the execution Court, raises several questions. We propose to deal only, so far as the decision of the case goes, with one point of law, which in our view is fatal to the appeal. Two application mere made to the Court below on the 27th of October 1919 to set aside a s Is, or, in other word, to declare that a sale which had been only held provisionally had become void in the events which had happened. There is a differently about the application under Order XXI, Rule 90. It is clear that his reason why two applications were made was that a difficulty was felt by the applicant and it was desirable to have an alternative or second string to his bow. The application under Order XXI, Rule 90, i.e., the application 1120, breaks down by reason of the fact that no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale was alleged or proved and no attempt was made to prove any loss resulting there from and it is plain law and covered by aut...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ubed Ullah and ors. Vs. Mohammad Insha Allah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All287; 61Ind.Cas.138
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this revision are as follows: It seems that Syed Zahurul Hasan was a candidate for service in the Postal Department and had to famish two sureties for good aonduot during his term of service. On the 25th of March 1903, he executed a personal security bond, with two sureties in the form prescribed by the Postal Department, The two sureties were Hafiz Abdul Rahim and Insha Allah Khan. Hafiz Abdul Rahim died in 1910, and in 1916 Zihurul Hasan embezzled a sum of Rs. 482-2-0. The Postal Authorities recover-ed the amount from the surviving surety, Insha Allah Khan. The present suit is by him to recover half of this amount from the heirs of his deceased co-surety Hafiz Abdul Rahim. The suit was brought in the Court of Small Causes at Meerut and was decreed. The defendants some here in revision and contend that the Court below has erred in decreeing the suit, as the security bond ceased to be operative as against the deceased surety after h...
Tag this Judgment!Balkaran Kurmi Vs. Sheodan Kurmi and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All193
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed joint possession, to the extent of a third share of certain plots of cultivatory land. The plaintiff set forth a pedigree under which he alleged that he had a third share in the holding. He also alleged that the family was joint, that they were in joint possession of the holding until seven years ago when a separation of the family took place but that the lands remained joint. By this, manifestly, he means that the lands were not divided by metes and bounds. He goes on further to allege that the defendants who are the owners of the remaining two-thirds share have excluded him from the profits of his one-third share, and he accordingly claimed joint possession in respect of a third share. The defence was that the plaintiff did not belong to the family at all, that he was not entitled to any portion of the disputed property, and that he had never been in possession. Both the courts below have fou...
Tag this Judgment!Pitam Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor, Through Ajodhia Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All215(2); 58Ind.Cas.828
1. This is an application by Pitam Singh, Behari and Lalta Prasad, three tenants, who have been convicted of having committed an offence of mischief, punishable under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, by cutting down an ancient tree admittedly standing upon their holding. The trial Court was of opinion that the three accused were guilty of mischief because, in the absense of evidence of a special custom, the property in the tree vested in the Zemindar, who was the complainant in the case. There was some evidence of a special custom and witnesses, who have apparently been believed by the trial Court, deposed that the tenants were in the habit of lopping branches from the tree when they needed wood for agricultural purposes. I have allowed the evidence on the question of custom to be completed by the production in this Court of a certified copy of an extract from the village record of Rights. I am not quite clear whether evidence was or was not given in the trial Court as to the provisions...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Lal Vs. Emperor, Through Lala Kalyan Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All218; 58Ind.Cas.927
Piggott, J.1. In this case the District Magistrate of Etawah has ordered further enquiry to be made into a complaint against one Hira Lal who had been discharged, after having been brought before the Court on a warrant, that Court behind one of competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, The District Magistrate's order appears, on the face of it, to show fairly strong cause against the procedure followed in the trial Court; but it has to be remembered that it was an ex parte order, the District Magistrate having taken it upon himself to dispose of the matter without issuing notice to the accused person. I have always consistently maintained that, where an accused person has once been brought before a Court of Justice under process, whether by means of a summons or by arrest under a warrant, if he is discharged by the Court, that order of discharge should not be interfered with except after notice to show cause issued to the said accused. I believe this is in as ordnance w...
Tag this Judgment!Sheodan Kurmi and ors. Vs. Balkaran Kurmi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All337; 59Ind.Cas.116
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed joint possession, to the extent of a third sharp, of certain plots of cultivatory land, The plaintiff set forth a pedigree under which he alleged that he had a third share in the holding. He also alleged that the family was joint, that they were in joint possession of the holding until seven years ago when a separation of the family took place, but that the lands remained joint, By this manifestly, be means that the lands were not divided by metes and bounds. He goes on further to allege that the defendants, who are the owners of the remaining two thirds share, have excluded him from the profits of his one third share and he accordingly claimed joint possession in respect of a third share. The defense was that the plaintiff did not belong to the family at all, that he was not entitled to any portion of the disputed property, and that he had never been in possession. Both the Courts below have found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Munna Lal and ors. Vs. Sadanun Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All359; 76Ind.Cas.624
1. We think that the finding of fact by the learned Judge that the practice was to render accounts and make payments at Shahjahanpur is fatal to this application. As has often been said, evidence may be looked into in an application in revision to see whether the jurisdiction of the Court has been properly exercised, but if there is a conflict of evidence and an issue of fact has been found in one way, the Re-visional Court does not revise the finding of fact. Under these circumstances, the application is rejected with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mullo and anr. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All348; (1921)ILR43All191
Tudball, Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:2. One Hulasi was recorded as an occupancy tenant of a certain holding for many years prior to 1300 Fasli (corresponding to A.D. 1893.) In 1301 Fasli there was a new settlement and the names of Pitai and Reoti, the sons of Dudha, were recorded as occupancy tenants of that holding, and the name of Hulasi was removed. Apparently the latter continued in possession, because in the year 1898 Pitai and Reoti issued a notice of ejectment against him, which ho proceeded to contest under Section 39, Act XII of 1881. The Revenue Court decided in favour of Hulasi that he was the occupancy tenant, and no appeal was preferred from that decision. In the year 1915, Ram Lal and Dudha, the sons of Pitai and Budha, son of Reoti, sued the present plaintiffs appellants and their brother Ghasi for arrears of rent. This suit was in respect of one of the plots (No. 851) which constituted Hulasi's h...
Tag this Judgment!Mollo and anr. Vs. Ramlal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.772
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:-- One Hulasi was recorded as an occupancy tenant of a certain holding for many years prior to 1300 Fasli (corresponding to A.D. 1893). In 1301 Falsi there was a new settlement and the names of Pitai and Reoti, the sons of Dudha, were recorded as occupancy tenants of that holding and the came of Hulasi was removed. Apparently, the latter accident in possession because in the year 1898 Pitai and Reoti issued a notice of ejectment against him which he proceeded to contest under Section 39, Act XII of 1881. The Revenue Court decided in favour of Hulasi that he was the occupancy tenant and no appeal was preferred from that decision. In the year 1915 Ram Lal and Dudha, the sons of Pitai, and Budha, son of Reoti, sued the present plaintiffs appellants and their brother Ghasi for arrears of rent. This suit was in respect of one of the plots (No. 851) which constituted Hulasi's holding. Budha, Mula and Ghasi are not th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »