Allahabad Court December 1921 Judgments
O.M. Chiene Vs. Bawan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All316
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. These are two appeals in insolvency. The appellants are the minor sons of the insolvent Bindraban, appearing in the matter under the guardianship of their mother. Certain property which the receiver desires to make available for the satisfaction of the insolvent's debts was claimed by the appellants, on the ground that it had been conveyed to them by the will of their paternal grandfather. It may be noted at once that it has been proved and is not now contested, that the insolvent Bindraban had separated from his father. The said father was supposed to have executed two wills on one and the same date, by which he left property (dealt with by him as his self-acquired property) to the present appellants, the sons of Bindraban, and to another set of grandsons, the sons of a pre-deceased son, in equal shares. The two documents were produced and evidence was called before the District Judge to prove them. The District Judge was entirely sceptical as to the genuinene...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Muhammd Yakub and ors. Vs. Bechu Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.251
1. In this suit the plaintiffs came into Court as the proprietors of certain land and sought possession by ejectment of a number of defendants, together with damages for their wrongful possession. Certain defendants in paragraph 9 of their written statement raised a plea in the following terms: 'These defendants are only in possession of the plots mentioned below as sub-tenants of Brij Ballabh Rai and others, the principal ex-proprietary tenants. The plaintiffs have no right to bring the suit as against the defendants. The plaintiffs are only entitled to get rent from Brij Ballabh Rai and others, the principal tenants.' The same facts were repeated in the paragraph which followed and there the plea was expressly taken that, under Section 202 of the Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), the Civil Court was bound to require these contesting defendants to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for the determination of the question raised by the pleading. The Court of firs...
Tag this Judgment!Bawan Das and anr. Vs. O.M. Chiene
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All79; 64Ind.Cas.976
1. These are two appeals in insolvency. The appellants are the minor sons of the insolvent Bindraban, appearing in the matter under the guardianship of their mother. Certain property which the Receiver desires to make available for the satisfaction of the insolvent's debts was claimed by the appellants, on the ground that it had been conveyed to them by the Will of their paternal grandfather. It may be noted at once that it has been proved, and is not now contested, that the insolvent Bindraban had separated from his father. The said father was supposed to have executed two Wills on one and the same date, by which he left property (dealt with by him as his self-acquired property) to the present appellants, the sons of Bindraban, and to another set of grandsons, the sons of a predeceased son, in equal shares. The two documents were produced and evidence was called before the District Judge to prove them. The District Judge was entirely sceptical as to the genuineness of these documents....
Tag this Judgment!Debi Rai and ors. Vs. Prahlad Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All87; (1922)ILR44All242
Grimwood Mears, C.J., and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Debi Rai and others, who are the appellants in this matter, had a decree passed against them on the 9th of December, 1920. On the 7th of June, 1921, they made an application that Rs. 4,000, then in existence in cash, might be receive and war bonds or Government security notes might be purchased in the names of the petitioners. The order that was made on that application, which was, it is to be noticed, within six months from the date of the decree, was 'lay before the Bench concerned.' At the next sitting of the Bench concerned an application was made that this money might be received and the order was made. That order was made five days beyond the period of six months from the date of the decree. It should be stated that in the intervening period, namely, on the 22nd of April, 1921, the appellants obtained a certificate which fulfilled the requirements of the law. On the 21st day of November, 1921, the respondents lodged an object...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Rai and anr. Vs. Prahlad Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.340
1. Debi Rai and others, who are the appellants in this matter, had a decree passed against them on the 9th of December 1920. On the 7th of Jane 1921 they made an application that Rs. 4,000, then in existence in cash, might be received and War Bonds or Government Security Notes might be purchased in the names of the petitioners. The order that was made on that application, which was, it is to be noticed, within six months from the date of the decree, was 'lay before the Bench concerned.' At the next sitting of the Bench concerned an application was made that this money might be received and the order was made. That order was made five days beyond the period of six months from the date of the decree. It should be stated that in the intervening period, namely, on the 22nd of April 1921, the appellants obtained a certificate which fulfilled the requirements of the law. On the 21st of November 1921 the respondents lodged an Objection to the admission of the appeal and prayed that the certif...
Tag this Judgment!Misri Vs. Muhammad Hashim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All229
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The applicant Muhammad Hashim owned a flower garden in the city of Cawnpore which he let to the plaintiff for one year from March, 1920, to the following March, on a rent of Rs. 230. On the 15th day of November, 1920, the garden was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for improvements in Cawnpore, and the plaintiff was deprived of possession. He brought the present suit in the Court of Small Causes to recover Rs. 65 which he said was the loss incurred by him by reason of being deprived of possession of the garden in November, 1920. He also claimed Rs. 26 as costs of repairs made by him. The claim has been decreed. This application for revision has been filed by the defendant in respect of both the items mentioned above.2. As regards the sum of Rs. 65 claimed by the plaintiff, it is not alleged that, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover it, the amount would be unreasonable or excessive. But what is urged is that under Section 65 of the Contract Act, w...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Hashim Vs. Misri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All6; 65Ind.Cas.253
1. The applicant, Muhammad Hashim, owned a flower garden in the city of Cawnpore, which be let to the plaintiff for one year from March 1920 to the following March on a rent of Rs. 230. On the 15th of November 1920 the garden was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for improvements in Cawnpore, and the plaintiff was deprived of possession. He brought the present suit in the Court of Small Causes to recover Rs. 65 which, he said, was, the loss incurred by him by reason of being deprived of possession of the garden in November 1920. He also claimed Rs. 26 as costs of repairs made by him. The claim has been decreed. This application for revision has been filed by the defendant in respect of both the items mentioned above.2. As regards the sum of Rs. 65 claimed by the plaintiff, it is not disputed that if the plaintiff is entitled to recover it the amount would be unreasonable or excessive. But what is urged is that under Section 65 of the Contract Act, which the Court below has applie...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All86; 65Ind.Cas.438
Stuart, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Agra has referred to this Court the case of a certain Bhola sweeper, who has been bound over by the Cantonment Magistrate of Agra under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code He has been asked to furnish two sureties of Rs. 100 each and to execute a bond himself for Rs. 200 to be of good behaviour for one year. The proceedings were perfectly regular. An appeal was filed to the District Magistrate, who dismissed it by a considered order. The Judge suggests that the proceedings were without jurisdiction and that the evidence did not justify the passing of the order, Bhola has been represented in this Court by competent Counsel who has argued on the merits, I take first the question of jurisdiction. It is proved that Bhola is a resident of Boileauganj which is in the Agra Cantonments. The Cantonment Magistrate had clearly jurisdiction under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, if Bhola was a person within the local limits of his jurisdiction, The section ...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho and anr. Vs. Sanwar Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.918
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff-applicant held a usufructuary mortgage of certain property, including two groves, from the defendant. In execution of a money-decree obtained against the defendant by one Topsi, the latter caused these two groves to be sold by auction, The plaintiff deposited the amount of Topsi's decree with the usual 5 per sent, payable to the auction-purchaser within thiry days of the date of the sale in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and had the sale set aside. He then brought the present suit to recover from the defendant the money paid by him. The Court below has dismissed the claim on the ground that the payment was a voluntary one. It is contended that it was necessary for the plaintiff to have the sale set aside in order to maintain his possession of the groves undisturbed by the auction purchaser and that he could not be deemed to be a mere 'volunteer' when he made the payment. This contention seems to be well-founded. He had an ...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu and anr. Vs. Tulshi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All33; 64Ind.Cas.958
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are these. A suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore for recovery of a certain sum of money which was alleged to have been due by the two defendants. One of these defendants was Musammat Mithana. On the first day fixed for the hearing she did not appear and the Court made an order that the proceedings as against her were to be ex parte. Apparently the case was not heard that day, but on the 13th of July 1920 Musammat Mithana appeared by a Pleader who filed a vakalatnama, which I find from the record authorised him to refer the matter to arbitration. On her behalf the Pleader stated that her defence was the same as that of the other defendant. On that day both parties filed an application praying that the case might be referred to arbitration. This application was verified by the plaintiff', the male defendant and the Pleader for Musammat Mithana. The case was referred to the arbitration of a Pleader and an award was made dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›