Allahabad Court April 1921 Judgments
Babu Lal and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ghazanfar-ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All614
Tudball, Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is an application in revision from a decision of the Judge, Small Cause, Court, Allahabad. The plaintiffs are the lessees of a certain mandi in Allahabad town. The defendant is a person who took a contract from the Municipal Board of Allahabad to build or repair a very small drain in this mandi and also to repair certain roads outside the mandi. He stacked upon the land of the mandi not only materials for the building of the drain but also materials for the repairing of the road outside. These materials were stacked for at least two months. The plaintiffs sued him for damages for his unlawful act in that he stacked all these materials, that is, chiefly the materials for the repairing of the road, on his land, and thereby prevented him from using it. The court below has decreed the claim.2. The point raised in this Court was, that the suit would not lie because Section 42 of the Sewerage and Drainage Act of 1894 applied and compensation coul...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Pershad Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.548
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant, who is a minor, for partition of property, which he claims to be joint family property, owned by the joint family consisting of himself and the defendants, who are the sons of his uncle, Baldeo Das. The property, the partition of which is sought, consists of an ancestral house situated at Agra and a certain business which was divided into three parte, one being a sloth business, one a business of money lending on pawn of ornaments and the third an ordinary banking and hundi business. There was also a claim in respect to other moveable properties, sash as ornaments, etc.2. The defense of the defendants was that there was to joint family and that so far bask as the year 1885 there had been a complete separation in the time of the plaintiff's father. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no title or interest in the ancestral house.3. The Court below held that the separation alleged by the defendants was acrres...
Tag this Judgment!Karimullah and anr. Vs. Atma Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All53; 63Ind.Cas.295
1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1387 of 1920 arias oat of two suits for pre-emption on the basis of two separate sale-deeds. It appears that in 1872 one Dal chand was the owner of the entire mahal in which the property in dispute is situated. At the time of the Settlement which took place in that year there, Dal Chand got a recital in the wajib-ul-arz of the northern mahal, in which the property in dispute is situated, recorded to the effect that whatever hail been recorded by Janki Prasad, the sole proprietor in his western mahal, should be followed in this mahal also. A reference to the wajib-ul-arz of the northern mahal shows that it had a statement recorded to the following effect:At present I am the sole proprietor in the mahal. I have full power to transfer my property to whomsoever I like. In case the conditions change and there is plurality of co-sharers, then if any so sharer wishes to sell his share he will first offer to his own brothers and in case of their refu...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Godhni Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All264; 63Ind.Cas.737
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Azimgarh, refusing to restore an appeal which was decreed ex parte on the 4th of June 1920.2. The appellant before as is Muiammat Godhni, who was defendant in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.3. The suit against her was dismissed in the Court of first instance on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that Musammat Godhni was his wife. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Judge. We have referred to the order-sheet, which shows that in the first instance the 8th of April was fixed for the first hearing of the appeal. On that date Musammat Godhni entered an appearance by a Vatalatnama signed by two Pleaders on her behalf. So far as she was consented, therefore, she was ready to go en with the hearing of the appeal on the date in question.4. It appears, however, that the learned Judge was unable to take up the case on that date on account of press of work. The result was that the hearing of t...
Tag this Judgment!Saqib HusaIn and anr. Vs. Nand Kishore Alias Anandi Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All236; 63Ind.Cas.891
Ryves, J.1. This revision arises out of the following facts. The plaintiff Nand Kishore brought a salt in the Revenue Court under Section 58(b) of the Agra Tenancy Act against Saqib Husain and Musammat Aman Khatun. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable in the Revenue Court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and he reversed the decree of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case for trial of the remaining issues. The defendants tome here in revision, and the first ground they the is that no appeal lay to she District Judge. The argument is this. The suit being one under Sections 58 and 63 of the Agra Tenancy Act, is included in group in the Fourth Schedule, serial number 29. That group deals with suits triable by the Assistant Collector of the fir tales, in which appeal lies to the Revenue Court. The argument is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction whatsoever to hear the appeal and that therefore, revision lies under the express t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ratan Pande Vs. Sheo Ram Pande and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All604
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. The point raised in this appeal, put in short, comes to this. Whether a Hindu mother who has succeeded to her son's estate as such can validly alienate a part of the property in order to pay off certain time-barred debts of her husband. The lower appellate court has held the contrary, holding that there is no warrant in Hindu Law for validating such a transfer. The transferee comes here in second appeal. The argument put forward on his behalf to support the transfer for this account is that the son was under a pious obligation to pay certain debts contracted by his father and uncle respectively, and as the son died without paying those debts, his mother, who succeeded to the estate which originally belonged to her husband and her husband's brother, was justified in making the transfer of the family property to pay off those debts. The utmost extent to which the Hindu law has gone in this matter is that a son is under a pious duty to pay his father's debt,...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ram Pande and ors. Vs. Sheo Ratan Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All163; 63Ind.Cas.279
1. The point raised in this appeal, put in short, comes to this Whether a Hindu mother who has succeeded to her son's estate as such can validly alienate a part of that property in order to pay off certain time barred debts of her husband. The lower Appellate Court has held the contrary holding that there is no warrant in Hindu Law for validating such a transfer. The transferee comes here in second appeal. The argument put forward on his behalf to support the transfer for this account is that the son was under a pious obligation to pay certain debts contracted by his father and uncle respectively and as the son died without paying those debts, his mother, who succeeded to the estate which originally belonged to her husband and her husband's brother, was justified in making the transfer of the family property to pay off those debts. The utmost extent to which the Hindu Law has gone in such matter is that a son is under a pious duty to pay his father's debt and also that a sonless widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.525
1. Between the 10th of December and the 17th of December 1919 the District of Kumaun suffered a series of dacoities. The first was at Hasanpur Road on the evening of the 10th of December. The second at Horipara later on the same night. The third at Satuia on the 12th. The fourth at Gangapur on the 15th. And the fifth at Paohpera on the 17th of December. Five men ware said to be impliActed in the dasoitiea. As a result, Ram Sahai and Nathua were tried for the Hasanpur dacoity and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. For the second dacoity Ram Sahai, Nathua, Rurkoo and Parshadi were tried, and as this was a dacoity attended with circumstances of great cruelty they were sentenced each to 30 stripes. For the third dacoity, that of Satuia, the same four persons were put upon their trial with the addition of a fifth by name Mangali Ram Sahai, Nathua, Rurkoo and Mangali were tried for a fourth dacoity and sentenced as regards the first three to ten. years' rigorous imprisonment an...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Piari Vs. Ram Piari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All600
Walsh, J.1. I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed and the judgment of the first court restored. The plaintiff has failed to make out a title. The only ground on which the lower appellate court has reversed the first court is contained in the view which it has taken that a conveyance to two or more persons without words specifying their shares constitutes a joint tenancy. One can understand the learned Judge, if the more recent cases were not brought to his notice, falling into that fallacy because it is contained in a two Judge decision of this Court, reported in Mankamna Kunwar v. Balkishan Das (1905) I.L.R. 28 All. 38.2. But that case when studied appears to be merely a repetition of a highly technical rule of the interpretation which was placed upon language in an English conveyance at common law. There is no such thing as a technical art or system of conveyancing in India and, as has been pointed out in many cases in India and in the Privy Council, to which it is not nec...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Rampiari and anr. Vs. Musammat Krishna Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All50; 63Ind.Cas.301
Walsh, J.1. I am of opinion that this appeal must be allowed and the judgment of the first Court restored. The plaintiff has failed to make oat a title. The only ground on which the lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the first Court is contained in the view which it has taken that a conveyance to two or more persons without words specifying their shares constitutes a joint tenancy. One can understand the learned Judge, if the more recent cases were not brought to his notion, falling into that fallacy, because it is contained in a two Judge decision of this Court reported as Mankamma Kuar v. Balkishen Das 28 A. 38 A.W.N. (1905) 170, But that case, when studied, appears to be merely a repetition of a highly technical rule of the interpretation which was placed upon language in an English conveyance at Common Law. There is no such thing as a technical art or system of conveyancing in India and as has been pointed out in many cases in India and in the Privy Council to which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »