Allahabad Court February 1921 Judgments
Tej Bali Singh Since Deceased Vs. Baijnath Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All228
Dunedin, J.1. The question arises as to the succession to the zamindari of Aghori-Barhar. The estate is of great value, and the question raised is one of wide importance.2. The estats fell vacant by the death of Rani Kunwari, the widow of the last male holder, Raja Kesho Saran Shah. She died in 1913, having possessed the estate since the death of her husband in 1871, but it was conceded that her possession was not due to any title arising out of separation or self-acquisition.3. This couple left no children, and to trace the succession you have to go up for five generations to find an ancestor common to Raja Kesho Saran Shah, the last male holder, and the two claimants who are adversaries in the appeal. This common ancestor, Raja Sudisht Narayau Shah, had three sons, from the eldest of whom Raja, Kesho Saran was descended, There is co one left in this line. The descendants of the second son are also extinct.4. The plaintiff is the great-great-great-grandson of the third son. The defend...
Tag this Judgment!Harak NaraIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All126; 62Ind.Cas.408
Tudball, J.1. Criminal Revision Nos. 690 691 and 692 are connected with each other and also with Criminal Revisions Nos. 757, 758 and 759. Three persons, Harakh Narain, Baij Nath and Raghunath, were prosecuted for three separate acts of criminal trespass. They were tried at three separate trials and convicted by the Magistrate at each trial. For each separate offence they were sentenced to four days' rigorous imprisonment each on the same date. The Trying Magistrate subsequently added to his three judgments on the same date the following order:--'The sentences to run from today.' Evidently it was his desire that the three sentences should run concurrently. An appeal was preferred and the Appellate Court has dismissed all the appeals. At the hearing of the appeals it was pointed out to the Appellate Court that the order of the Magistrate, added by him after delivery of his judgment in each case, was clearly beyond his power, inasmuch as there had been three separate trials and under the...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Shakur and Hafiz Chhedda Shah Vs. Muhammad Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All64; (1921)ILR43All456
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. In this case it has been found that there was a submission in writing. It is quite true that the submission in writing contained a reference to two arbitrators and an umpire, which is the ordinary normal number, probably because this is the number, contemplated by the Legislature, but the fact that there was a reference to three specified individuals in the submission does not make it any the less a written submission. From that moment the jurisdiction of the civil courts was ousted, except for the purpose of an application to file or set aside an award in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1899. A reference, although contained in this case in the same document, need by no means be contained in the submission and frequently is not, but this is a matter wholly independent and distinct from the submission to arbitration; for example, if all three persons named in the reference or submission died, the submission would still exist as...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Pande Vs. Lachhmi Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All160; (1921)ILR43All459
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Lunacy Act No. IV of 1912. They began by an application filed in the court of the District Judge of Ghazipur by one Murlidhar Pande on the 31st of March, 1920. Murlidhar Pande alleged that he was a relation of Lachhmi Pande and that Lachhmi Pande was of unsound mind within the meaning of the Act and incapable of managing his property, and in the interests of the minors asked to be appointed guardian of his estate. This application was immediately followed by at least two more applications by other relations of Lachhmi Pande. Mata Dayal Pande was one. The procedure adopted by the then Judge of Ghazipur was not according to law. On these applicants coming before him he examined them and found that they were all agreed that Lachhmi Pande was a lunatic, and they suggested that Mahadeo Prasad, who seems to have been a person of some position, was a suitable person to be appointed the guardian of the lunatic and his property, He, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Abdus Shakur Vs. Mohammad Yusuf and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.426
1. In this case it has been found that there was a submission in writing. It is quite true that the submission in writing contained a reference to two arbitrators and an umpire, which is the ordinary normal number, probably because this is the number contemplated by the Legislature, but the fact that there was a reference to three specified individuals in the submission does not make it any the less a written submission. From that moment the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted, except for the purpose of an application to file or set aside an award in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1899. A reference, although contained in this case in the same document, need by no means be contained in the submission and frequently is not, but this is a matter wholly independent and distinct from the submission to arbitration; for example, if all three persons named in the reference or submission died, the submission would still exist as such although no arb...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Sahai and ors. Vs. Rahtu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All454
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The plaintiffs brought this suit in the court of the Munsif of Kairana alleging that they and the defendants were joint owners of an isolated plot in the abadi of a village, which they had purchased from the zamindars, and asked for partition of the plot. Among other defences it was pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Munsif held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the court dismissed the suit with coats. This order, it seems to us, was clearly wrong, lb should have ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiffs appealed, and the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case for decision on the merits. In appeal before us it is urged that the decision of the Munsif was correct as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and it is urged that Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act bars the suit. In our opinion that ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachha Ram Alias Lachman Vs. Virji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All66; 62Ind.Cas.399
1. This is an appeal from an order returning a plaint to the proper Court for want of jurisdiction in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, in which the suit was brought, A preliminary objection was raised against the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies, but it has been settled by authorities of this Court that an appeal lies.2. The suit was brought for damages for nondelivery of ashes. It was brought in the Court at Agra. An objection was raised to the jurisdiction of that Court on the ground that the contract was neither made nor performed in Agra. The case was heard on the merits and the plaintiff was given a decree for Rs. 1,100. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the amount of the award, appealed from that decision and the defendant also filed cross-objections objecting to the amount of the decree passed against him to the extent of Rs. 800. Subsequently, by leave of the Court, the defendant added a ground of objection founded upon the want of jurisdiction i...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand Alias Ratan Singh Vs. Mathura Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All298; 60Ind.Cas.896
Rafique, J.1. It appears that Maharaj Singh and his son, Ram Chandra alias Ratan Singh, were members of a joint undivided Hindu family and had some joint family property. Daring the time that the family was joint, a certain item of property was acquired by right of pre-emption. On the 27th of February 1903 Maharaj Singh executed a tamliknama in favour of his son Ram Chandra in respect of the said property. On the 12th of December 1914 Mathura Prasad and Parbhu Dayal obtained a decree for their share of profits in m certain village against Maharaj Singh. In execution of that decree they attached the property that had been conveyed by the tamliknama of the 27th of February 1903 to Bara Chandra, the son of Maharaj Singh. He objected to the attachment on the ground that the property attaahed belonged to him. The objection was disallowed on the 7th of July 1917. There upon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by Ram Chandra against the decree-holders, Mathura Prasad a...
Tag this Judgment!Binda Prasad Vs. Ram Chandar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All89; (1921)ILR43All452
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages. The plaintiff's case was that he and one Abdul Haq became partners in a brick kiln business in August, 1913; that a deed of partnership was drawn up on the 16th of October, 1913; that the plaintiff supplied Rs. 2,000 and Abdul Haq Rs. 300 worth of capital, and that, the plaintiff not having the necessary technical knowledge, Abdul Haq ran the business. But the plaintiff, discovering that Ablul Haq was heavily involve in debt, decided to separate from him, and on the 26th of March, 1914, a deed of dissolution of partnership was drawn up, under which the plaintiff paid to Abdul Haq Rs. 800, his share of the capital, and Rs. 950, his share of some of the produce of the kiln. Apparently this sum of Rs. 1,250 was distributed to certain creditors of Ablul Haq Among the creditors were the respondents to the present appeal. Abdul Haq applied to the District Judge to be declared an insolvent, and a...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyed Murtaza HusaIn and ors. Vs. Ziaul Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All59; 62Ind.Cas.684
1. The circumstances under which this appeal arises are briefly as follows:--One Mohammad Ali died about thirty years ago leaving as his heirs a son Zia-ul-Hasan, four daughters, one of whom was Nathia Begam, and a widow. He was a Shia by persuasion and Nathia Begam became entitled to 7 out of 48 sihams in his estate and her name was entered over that share. Musammat Nathia Begam died in November 1915 leaving the plaintiffs as her heirs. The plaintiffs applied for mutation of names over the share recorded in her name, but were met with an objection of Zia ul-Hasan, her brother and Lambardar of the Mahal. The plaintiffs also brought a suit for profits for the years 1321 and 1322 Faslis against the said Lambardar. The Revenue Court disallowed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs were not in possession. The suit for profits was also dismissed on the ground that the Lambardar had acquired title to the property by adverse possession, This decree dismissing the suit for profits ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »