Allahabad Court July 1921 Judgments
Chajju and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All35; 63Ind.Cas.460
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application on behalf of Chajju and four others, who were convicted in the Court of a Magistrate on charges under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former section each of the accused was sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment and Under the latter each of them was given one month's rigorous imprisonment; the sentences were to run consecutively.2. In addition to these punishments the Magistrate ordered each of the accused to be bound over under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to keep the peace. In appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 147, but maintained the convictions and sentences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He also maintained the order for security under Section 106.3. The first point raided here in revision is that there was an order of acquittal which was a bar to the trial by the Magistrate who convicted the accused. In order to understand the nature of t...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jagrani Misrani Vs. Musammat Sheo Dulari ShuklaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.462
Stuart, J.1. The following are the fasts. A certain Chandrika died some time previous to 1900. His widow Anurani succeeded him. She died on the 7th of August 1900. Mulai hia brother's son and Chandrika's daughter Jagrani applied to succeed her. There was a compromise between Jagrani and Mulai, under which Jagrani abandoned her claim and Mulai succeeded to the property. Then Jagrani instituted a suit against Mulai to obtain possession of the property, alleging that the compromise had been obtained from her by fraud. These proceedings did not terminate until 1916. The Trial Court, the first Appellate Court and the High Court dismissed Jagrani's suit, holding that the compromise was a good compromise. But a Full Bench of the High Court decreed her suit, holding that the compromise was ineffective because it was unregistered, though it was not decided that the compromise was fraudulent. The final decision was on the 24th of March 1916, In the year 1919 Sheo Dulary and Muiammat Kapura, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Badri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.416
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit. The plaintiff produced a copy of the wajib-ul-arz of the year 1880, which recited that there was a custom of pre-emption and also gave details of the custom. The defendants, however, produced a copy of the dastur dehi of the year 1813 and also produced the patwari to show that there is no entry of any such custom in the wajib-ul-arz of the resent Settlement of 1313 Fasli. There is no other evidence in proof of the custom of pre-emption. There are, however, a few instances of sales to strangers, bat it is not clearly shown whether those sales look place with the consent of the co-sharers or not. The learned District Judge thought that in the dastur dehi of 1843 there was no reference to the right of pre-emption at all, and relying on the case of Harnand v. Kalloo 3 Ind. Cas. 2 : 6 A.L.J. 779 : 31 A. 533, he was of opinion that the presumption that the entry in wajib-ul-arz...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Radha Kishun Vs. Musammat Abbasi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.480
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sold is a part of a resumed muafi plot. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the plot. The Court of first instance originally dismissed the suit. On appeal the suit has been decreed by the lower Appellate Court. The defendant has come up in appeal to this Court and on his behalf it is contended that in the first place, no custom of pre-emption has been proved at all; and in the next place, even if a custom of pre-emption exists, it does not apply to owners of resumed muafi plots. The wajib-ul-arz, which is the sole evidence in this case, consists of several chapters, Chapter II deals with the rights of co-sharers and in paragraph 14 of that chapter there is a long clause dealing with the rights of preemption in case a 'hissedar' transfers his property. Then comes Chapter III, which deals with the rights of owners of resumed and unresumed muafi plots. In paragraph 2 of this chapter, which refers to muafidars ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Siddiq Khan Vs. Lala Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All432; 64Ind.Cas.524
1. The question in this case is whether the decree-holder's application for execution presented on the 30th of March 1920 is barred by limitation. The decree in the case was passed on the 20th of December 1916. On the 22nd of that month the first application for execution of the decree was made and the prayer was to attach three houses. The attachment was duly made on the 30th of January 1917. On the same date three objections were filed in regard to the attachment of the property, each objector claiming the attached property as his own and praying for the removal of the attachment on the property which was claimed by each objector. These applications were resisted by the decree-holder, and on the 23rd of April 1917 he presented an application praying that witnesses may be summoned on his behalf obviously for the purpose of resisting the objections preferred by the objectors. The objections prevailed and the property was released from attachment on the 30th of April 1917. The decree ho...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Lal Vs. Musammat Nannhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All153; (1922)ILR44All127
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. We think this appeal must be allowed. The finding of fact is that none of the attesting witnesses saw the executants put their signatures on the deeds. We cannot interfere with this finding. It seems to us somewhat narrow and pedantic, inasmuch as they were present and one would have thought that it was not unreasonable to presume that they saw what they were there to see. But this question is irrelevant. It does not matter whether they proved it or whether they did not. There is an admission of the execution of this document on the pleadings in the case, and Section 70 of the Evidence Act, which appears to have been overlooked in the courts below, provides that the admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. That section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the calling of attesting witnesses, clea...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Asharfi Lal Vs. Musammat Nanhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.11
1. We think this appeal must be allowed, The finding of fact is that none of the attesting witnesses saw the executants put their signatures on the deeds. We cannot interfere with this finding. It seems to us somewhat narrow and pedantic, inasmuch as they were present and one would have thought that it was not unreasonable to presume that they saw what they were there to see ; but this question is irrelevant. It does not matter whether they proved it or whether they did not. There is an admission of the execution of this document on the pleadings in the case and Section 70 of the Evidence Act, which appears to have been overlooked in the Courts below, provides that the admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. That section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the sailing of attesting witnesses, clearly could only have be...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Lal Vs. Munni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All67
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts of this case are these. In 1886 certain persons mortgaged their property to one Shadi Lal. In 1906 they mortgaged the same property to the present plaintiff Shib Lal. Shadi Lal brought a suit upon his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against the mortgagors and the second mortgagee, the present plaintiff, on the 17th of January, 1912. The decree was not discharged by the mortgagors, and therefore, on the 24th of January, 1914, that is, before the decree had become time-barred, the present plaintiff paid on account of the aforesaid decree, and in discharge of it, a sum of Rs. 2,297. After the discharge of the decree by the abovementioned payment the mortgagors sold a part of their property to one Mohan Lal. The defendant Panna Lal brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of this sale and obtained a decree. He deposited in court an amount which discharged the second mortgage held by the plaintiff. This amount had not been pa...
Tag this Judgment!Bora Shib Lal Vs. Munni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.604
1. The facts of this case are these: In 1886 certain persona mortgaged their property to one Shadi Lal. In 1906 they mortgaged the same property to the present plaintiff, Shib Lal. Shadi Lal brought a suit upon his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against the mortgagors and the second mortgagee, the present plaintiff, on the 17th of January 1912. The decree was not discharged by the mortgagors and therefore, on the 24th of January 1914, that if, before the decree had bosoms time barred, the prudent plaintiff paid on account of the aforesaid decree and in discharge of it, a gum of Rs. 2,297. After the discharge of the decree by the above mentioned payment the mortgagors sold a part of their property to one Mohan Lal. The defendant Panna Lal brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of this sale and obtained a decree. He deposited in Court an amount which discharged the second mortgage held by the plaintiff. This amount had not been paid by the transferees of the property and cons...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Saran Chaudhri and ors. Vs. Ram Lagan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All355; 64Ind.Cas.413
1. This case had already been before us and was adjourned for the production of the record of certain proceedings which were taken under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. We sent for that record in order to enable us to decide a plea which was raised in both the Courts below, it was whether a deposit which undoubtedly was made by the mortgagee in this case was a valid deposit so as to stop the running of interest.3. It has been found as a matter of fact that the mortgagee in this case, that is to say the person in whose favour the mortgage purports to have been executed, was one Ram Lagan, who was at the time of the mortgage a minor. So far as can be ascertained, he was at that time about five years of age and according to the evidence on the record the Court below has found that he was a member of a joint Hindu family along with his father, one Mahadeo Das.4. The record of the Section 83 proceedings has been brought before us, and from this it appears that on the 19th Augu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »