Allahabad Court June 1921 Judgments
Muhammad Abdul Hadi Vs. Baldeo Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All168; (1922)ILR44All57; 63Ind.Cas.831
Lindsay, J.1. I am asked in this application to interfere with an order of discharge passed by a first class magistrate in a case which was brought by Muhammad Abdul Hadi against one Baldeo Sahai.2. The former is the lambardar in a village and the latter is the patwari.3. It appears that a certain suit for profits was brought against Abdul Hadi by a co-sharer in the village and in the course of the trial of that case the patwari was examined for the purpose of showing what the collections of rent had been during the years in suit.4. In connection with one tenant named Majju the patwari deposed that his rent was Rs. 58 a year. On the contrary, the lambardar produced certain evidence for the purpose of showing that a lease had been given by him to Majju at the rent of Rs. 34 only. The result in the Revenue Court was that when the account came to be taken between the parties the rate of Rs. 34 per annum was accepted and the plaintiff's claim decreed accordingly.5. Abdul Hadi then applied ...
Tag this Judgment!ishri Prasad Vs. Muhammad Hanif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All77
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 70 of 1919 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent to recover money alleged to be due upon a zar-i-peshgi lease executed by the defendants in favour of Baldeo Prasad, father of the plaintiff, on the 12th of December, 1894, The property comprised in the zar-i-peshgi lease, which is in reality a usufructuary mortgage, consisted of 11 villages, 9 of which were subject to a prior mortgage, on which a decree had been obtained in 1893. According to the terms of the usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagee was to remain in possession of the 11 villages and the mortgage could be redeemed upon payment in the month of Jeth of any year of the principal amount borrowed. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 9,000 and the plaintiff claims that amount together with interest, on the allegation that he was dispossessed in May, 1916, from two of the villages included in the mortgage, of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyed Muhammad Haneef and ors. Vs. B. Isri Prasad and Muhammad Askari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.768
1. This and the connected appeal No. 70 of 1919 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover money alleged to he due upon a zar-i-peshgi lease executed by the defendants in favour of Baldeo Prasad, father of the plaintiff, on the 12th of December 1894. The property comprised in the zar-i-peshgi lease, which is in reality a usufructuary mortgage, consisted of 11 villages, 9 of which were subject to a prior mortgage on which a decree had been obtained in 1893. According to the terms of the usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagee was to remain in possession of the eleven villages and the mortgage could be redeemed upon payment in the month of Jeth of any year of the principal amount borrowed. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 9,000, and the plaintiff claims that amount together with interest on the allegation that he was dispossessed in May 1916 from two of the villages included in the mortgage, of which he was in possession. Various pleas were raised...
Tag this Judgment!Harjan Rai and anr. Vs. Mahabir Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.474
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain immoveable property and mesne profits by avoidance of two sale-deeds, dated the 30th of June 1881, executed by one Musammat Lashmina, widow of Bechu Rai deceased, and Beshan Rai, the brother of her deceased husband. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Bechan Rai. The plaintiffs' case was that Bechu Rai and Bechan Rai were separated brothers; that Bechu Rai owned the property in dispute and on his death his widow Musammat Lachmina same into possession of it as a Hindu widow; that she transferred the property without any legal necessity and that, therefore, the transfers are not binding on the plaintiffs, and that she died within 12 years of the suit and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession.2. On behalf of the defendants it was pleaded that Bechu Rai and Bechan Rai were members of a joint Hindu family and that Musammat Lachmina Kunwar's name was entered in the revenue papers merely...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Dass Vs. Gurdayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All188; 64Ind.Cas.459
1. This case seems to have so little relation to realities that it is somewhat difficult to know where to begin, It arose out of an application by one Bhagwan Das to file an agreement or submission to arbitration under paragraph 17 of the Code. The learned Judge has dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action. What he means it is impossible to say, He has also indulged in a great deal of superfluous discussion about allowing the arbitrators to sleep for two years, and various hypothetical suggestions which do not seem to us to have anything to do with the case. Whether from the fault of the parties, or from the lack of firmness on the part of the Judge, the fast is that the matter has been decided as a matter of law without the Court knowing anything about the facts. We constantly have occasion to complain of this method of dealing with oases in applications and one becomes absolutely tired of repeating it. How the learned Judge could possibly suppose that he i...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pal and ors. Vs. Musammat Batashia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All199; 64Ind.Cas.191
1. This and the connected Appeal No, 1045 arise out of two preemption suits brought by rival pre-emptors in respect to one and the same sale. The original vendor was Sheoraj Singh. Musammat Batasi, one of the pre-emptorg, is the widow of one Beni Madho. Beni Madho's great-grandfather and Sheoraj Singh's great grandfather were one and the same person. Musammat Batasi is a co-sharer in the village, Her husband having died, she has inherited his estate. The other pre-emptors Ram Pal, etc., are also co-sharers in the villages The custom under which both these seta of pre-emptors advance their alaima lays down two categories of co-sharers who may pre-empt. The first category is defined as ashkhas jaddi. The second category is shurakai deh. The Court of first instance held that both the sets of pre-emptorg came within the second class and stood on an equal footing. It, therefore, gave cash pre-emptor a conditional decree for half the property. On appeal the lower Appellate Court held that Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Sunder and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All193; 64Ind.Cas.688
1. Assuming that the learned Judge is right in holding that there were two contracts and two sarkhats, one contract having been made within the jurisdiction, namely, in the Allahabad District, and the other having been made at Madhoganj in Oudh, he was clearly right in the course he took as a matter of law under Order VII, Rule 10. The rule does not specifically state what is to be done when a plaint consists of a claim within the jurisdiction and also a claim outside the jurisdiction, but it obviously means that that portion of such a plaint which is outside the jurisdiction shall be treated as though: it was a distinct plaint by itself. The rule would be unworkable if it were not to be construed in this way. The learned Judge was clearly right in holding (indeed, there is no objection taken to it) that the mere fast that the ancestral home of persons, who are really residing outside the jurisdiction, was within the jurisdiction, did not give jurisdiction.2. The point raised by Mr. Da...
Tag this Judgment!Jhulai Vs. Badal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All53
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff was parjotdar of 1 bigha 15 biswas of land, for which he used to pay Rs. 40 per year as ground rent to the defendant. On the 16th of May, 1917, the plaintiff relinquished. 17 biswansis of land and agreed to pay Rs. 21 per year for the remaining land. A formal deed of relinquishment was executed by him, in which it was stated that the plaintiff did so because the portion of land relinquished was not fit for cultivation.2. The allegation of the plaintiff was that at the time he executed the said deed of relinquishment there had been a separate oral agreement between him and the defendant by virtue of which the latter agreed to pay Rs. 200 to the former, out of which Rs. 32 were to be credited towards the arrears of rent due by the former to the latter. Subsequently the defendant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 32 due to him on account of the said arrears of rent and obtained a decree against the plaintiff. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.620
Stuart, J.1. In this case the prosecution put forward that a burglary was committed in the house of a certain Karari, in which a considerable quantity of cloth was stolen. It is alleged that later on a portion of this 10th was found in the possession of Ram Sarup. On a later date, another portion of the cloth was found in possession of Pir Bux. Ram Sarup and Pir Bux have been tried together and convicted each under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, of being in dis. honest possession of stolen property knowing the same to be stolen. I am not concerned with the truth or falsehood of the prosecution story with regard to the commission of the burglary, the possession of the cloth by the two applicants and its identification as a portion of the stolen property. It is not necessary for me to express an opinion as to the value of the evidence on these points. There is a defeat in the procedure in the trying the two men together. This is an insuperable defeat. They could not be tried together le...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Singh Vs. Emperor Through the Sub-judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All210; 63Ind.Cas.616
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In a certain case a Will was produced by the applicant which was found to be a forged document. The Trial Judge, after having come to that finding, directed that the matter should be put up again before him for orders after his decision had bceome final. No appeal was, however, filed. Meanwhile, the Trial Judge was transferred and was succeeded by another Judge, The order of his predecessor was brought to his notice and he directed the prosecution of the applicant under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the successor of the Trial Judge could not have passed that; but that, as was held in Bahadur v. Eradatullah Mallick 6 Ind. Cas. 801 : 37 C. 642 : 14 C.W.N. 799 : 12 C.L.J. 45 : 11 Cr.L.J. 407, the word 'Court' in Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the successor of the Judge before whom the alleged offence was committed or to wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »