Allahabad Court February 1921 Judgments
Ram Anand Vs. Musammat Sheo Bala and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.809
Tudball, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that the revision is not entertain able in view of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere in revision where other remedies are open to a party. The suit was brought by the opposite party in the Court below for possession of property under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. It has been decreed. The defendant has come here in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, urging that the Court below acted illegally in that it debarred him from placing on record the evidence of a witness who could have established a hit of documentary evidence sufficient to disprove the plaintiffs title. It is pointed out that the applicant has her remedy by a regular suit on the basis of title and that, therefore, in view of the ruling of this Court in Jwala v. Ganga Prasad 30 A. 331 : 5 A.L.J. 297 : A.W.N. (1908) 142, this application in revision should not be entertained. In that; case also the application for revision arose out...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Nihal Chand and ors. Vs. Kanhai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All80; 62Ind.Cas.544
1. The order of the Court below is clearly correct, The claim is one arising cut of the collection of a sum of money which is under Section 5 of the Agriculturists' Loans Act of 1884, realisable as revenue. It arises out of a recovery of money due under that Act, Section 5 of which says:2. 'Every loan made in accordance with such rules, all interest chargeable thereon, and costs incurred in making or recovering the same shall be recoverable...as if they were arrears of land revenue or costs incurred in recovering the same.' Section 233(m) clearly debars the institution of any suit or other proceeding in a Civil Court with respect to any claim arising out of collection of any sum which is realisable as revenue.3. There is no force in the application. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Pahelwan Singh Vs. Sahib Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All76; 62Ind.Cas.869
Stuart, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of acquittal passed by an Appellate Court. The acquittal is a good order of acquittal in so far that it contains no inherent defects. Whether the Appellate Court did or did not arrive at a correct conclusion is a question into which I do not propose to go for the following reasons. There can be no doubt as to the fast that a High Court has power under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to revise an order of acquittal, though not to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In reference to orders of acquittal passed by a Court of Session or any other Appellate Court in appeal the High Court may under Section 439 reverse such an order and direst a re-trial of the appeal. This is the interpretation of the law which prevails in this Court, for this is the pronouncement of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Queen Empress v. Balwant 9 A. 134 : A.W.N. (1886) : 322 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 521. But on many...
Tag this Judgment!M. Debi Sahai Vs. Raghunath Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.173
Stuart, J.1. I agree with the view taken in choti v. Khecheru 58 Ind. Cas. 250 : 18 A.L.J. 758 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A) 353 : 21 Cr.L.J. 746 : 42 A. 649 that no application in revision lies from an order of a Sessions Judge passed on an application to revoke a sanction given by a Magistrate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But apart from that point, I see no reason on the merits to interfere. I reject this application....
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Singh Vs. Gokul Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.111
1. This is a suit for partition by two sons of a joint Hindu family against their father and also against the present appellant, in which they claimed partition of their two third share and a declaration that a mortgage granted by the father to the appellant was not binding upon their two-third share. The appellant, the mortgagee defendant in the suit, attempted in the first Court to prove legal necessity and it would appear that he took the onus upon himself. He failed miserably. Amongst other things he sailed the Patwari in support of his case, who had a conviction of two years' rigorous imprisonment to his credit for fabricating records. It was further found by the first Court that the father was keeping a lady and although the antecedent debt, which went back as far as 1903, the mortgage being dated in 1914, may have been and probably was older than this liason, the first Court said that in consequence of the father's attentions to the lady he had contrasted 'any amount of debt,' a...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Habib-ullah Vs. Bird and Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All257
Dunedin, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a contract made between the appellant and the respondents by which the appellant was to supply 4,000 sleepers of a special pattern at any station on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway by the 31st of May, 1913. As a condition of the contract, the appellant had to deposit and did deposit Rs. 5,000 with the respondents as security for liquidated damages at a certain rate per foot for all sleepers not delivered on the said 31st of May. The sleepers had to pass inspection. Only 1,746 sleepers were delivered and passed inspection. The time for delivery was extended, but no more deliveries were made and the parties in December, 1913, broke off negotiations. The appellant then raised action asking for (1) the return of the deposit; and (2) damages in respect of his profit on the balance of sleepers not supplied. The respondents counter-claimed for damages in respect of sleepers not delivered.2. The Subordinate Judge held that time was of the essence of the...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Yunus Vs. Muhammad Ishaq Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All103; (1921)ILR43All487
Muhammad Rafiq and Stuart, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for the recovery of plot No. 611 measuring 16 biswas on the following allegations. He stated that one Abdul Malik executed a deed of waqf in respect of plot No. 611 in 1905 in favour of the school called Anjuman-i-Sherwani at Aligarh. Subsequent to the creation of the waqf Abdul Malik sold the whole of his property to the defendants. The latter are in possession of the waqf property also and resisted the claim of the school. The plaintiff, as the Secretary of the school, sued to recover possession of the waqf property. The claim was resisted on various pleas, one of which was that no valid waqf had been created. Both courts accepted the pleas in defence and dismissed the claim. In second appeal to this Court it is contended that the evidence on the record proves a valid waqf under the Hanafi law and that the view taken of that law by the courts below is erroneous. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Maulvi Mohammad Yunis Vs. Mohammad Ishaq Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.896
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for the recovery of plot No. 611, measuring 66 biswas, on the following allegations, He stated that one Abdul Malik executed a deed of waif in respect of plot No. 611 in 1905 in favour of the school called Anjumani Sherwani at Aligarh. Subsequent to the creation of the wakf Abdul Malik sold the whole of his property to the defendants. The latter are in possession of the wakf property also and resisted the claim of the school. The plaintiff as the Secretary of the school sued to recover possession of the wakf property. The claim was resisted on various pleas one of which was that no valid wakf, had been created. Both Courts accepted the pleas in defence and dismissed the claim. In second appeal to this Court it is contended that the evidence on the record proves a valid wakf under the Hanafi Law and that the view taken of that law by the Courts below is erroneous. According to the case for the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Maiku Lal Vs. Mulaim Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All130; 62Ind.Cas.910
Tudball, J.1. A decree was passed in a mortgage suit. An appeal was preferred and the Appellate Court upheld the decree and dismissed the appeal. There are apparently some errors on the face of the decree, as drawn up in the Court of first instance. That Court on application made to it held that it had no power to amend the decree inasmuch as that power now vested in the Appellate Court. On application to the Appellate Court, the Judge held that his dearer, that is the decree of the Appellate Court, contained no errors and that be had no power whatsoever to amend the decree as drawn up in the Court of first instance.2. The learned Judge referred to the same ruling as the Court of first instance, namely, that of Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan 11 A. 267 : A.W.N. (1889) 55 : 13 Ind. Jur. 427 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 598, I.L.R. 11 Allahabad 267, which is also reported in the Weekly Notes for 1889 at page 55. The lower Court's order is obviously incorrect. The learned Judge has ov...
Tag this Judgment!Ghurey Vs. Sanwalia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.777
Tudball, J.1. This is a very simple matter. A decree was obtained against the appellant for Rs. 400 on the 15th of January 1920. On the 3rd of March 1920 the decree-holder applied in execution for the attachment of two bullocks and certain standing crops. The 'judgment-debtor objected that, under Section 60(6), his two bullocks were not liable to attachment and sale nor were the crops. The Court below has written a curious judgment. It runs as follows:The oxen are under mortgage to one Kalab Husain and, therefore, the judgment debtor cannot take any such objection about then. About crops, it appears that the judgment-debtor had sown grain crops and the decree-holder has left this out, no reason to leave off any more grain. Objection disallowed with costs.2. It appears from an examination of the record that this unfortunate judgment debtor was also in debt to his landlord, and that he had given a cart and the two bullocks as security for his debt, but when it became time to cultivate hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »