Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All538; 69Ind.Cas.834
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are these. Bhirag Rai was a fixed-rate tenant holding Certain land in fixed-rate tenancy in the village of Dhoudhia. In 1915, he was old and blind, and his four Rons had died of plague. On the 18th of September of that year he executed a deed of endowment by which he transferred his fixed-rate holding and house to Sri Thakurji Maharaj under the management of one Markendeo Bharti. He continued, however, to reside in the house which was little more than a heap of ruins, but he never gave up the site and, dilapidated as the buildings were, he continued to be sheltered by them. He died towards the end of 1918. Markendao then took possession of that house and re-built it. The plaintiff- Zemindar objected and then sued alleging that on the tenant's death the respondent had no right to build upon the land which belonged to the Zemindar. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed it on appeal. The present second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All159
Rafiq, J.1. This is a revision by one Hargayan who has been convicted under Section 215 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that one Sri Gopal owned some buffaloes, five of which were stolen on the 27th of November, 1921. He made a search for the missing buffaloes in the vicinity of his village, and, while so engaged in the search, about five days after the theft, ho met Hargayan and some others at a village called Rampur. Hargayan and two others are said to have made a proposal to Sri Gopal to the effect that if the latter paid Rs. 200 to them and promised to say nothing about the payment of the money and took no steps to trace the thieves, they would get him back his stolen buffaloes. Sri Gopal did not accept the proposal, and brought the matter to the notice of the police, which led to the prosecution of Hargayan and two others. Hargayan alone was convicted. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and the sentence, differing from the ruling of this Court repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All83; 76Ind.Cas.191
Rafique, J.1. This is a revision by one Hargayan who has been convicted under section 215 of the Indian Penal. Code. It appears that one Sri Gopal owned some buffaloes, five of which were stolen on the 27th of November 1921. He made a search for the missing buffaloes in the vicinity of his village, and, while so engaged in the search, about. five days alter the theft, he met Hargayan and some others at a village called Rampur. Hargayan and two others are said to have made a proposal to Sri Gopal to the effect that if the latter paid Rs. 200 to them and promised to say nothing about the payment of the money and took no steps to trace the thieves, they would get him back his stolen buffaloes. Sri Gopal did not accept the proposal and brought the matter to the notice of the Police, which led to the prosecution of Hargayan and two others. Hargayan alone was convicted. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction and the sentence, differing from the ruling of this Court rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All445; (1923)ILR45All157; 71Ind.Cas.455
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The plaintiff claimed joint possession of nine plots of land comprising 8 bighas and 13 biswas. He is one of the co-sharers in the village and is also the lambardar; the principal defendants are also co-sharers in. the village. It was alleged that the defendants had forcibly turned out the non-occupancy tenants who cultivated these lands, that the tenants brought a suit for restoration of possession and that the matter was compromised and, in the end, the-principal defendants took exclusive possession of the nine plots in. question. The plaintiff as a co-sharer claims a declaration of his right to the lands in dispute and also joint possession. The courts below have decreed the claim for a declaration of his right but have refused to grant him joint possession. In our opinion, in so doing the courts below are in error. It is true that under certain old rulings of this Court, in a suit between co-sharers a decree for joint possession was re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All162
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1425 of 1921 relate to a grove situate in the suburbs of Benares. In execution of a decree obtained against one Parsotam, this grove was sold by auction on the 10th of February, 1919, and was purchased by Madho Lal. Madho Lal brought a suit for recovery of possession of the grove by virtue of this auction purchase. A counter suit was brought by the appellant, Gopi Das, in which he claimed possession of the grove, at least in respect of one half of it. It appears that some disputes arose between Parsotam and Gopi Das before the auction sale, and a case was instituted in the Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case was compromised on the 28th of May, 1918, and in that compromise it was stated that Parsotam Das was to remain in possession of a part of this grove and Gopi Das was to remain in possession of another part. The Criminal Court decided the case under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 76Ind.Cas.527
1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1425 of 1921 relate to a grove situate in the suburbs of Benares. In execution of a decree obtained against one Personam, this grove was sold by auction on the 1oth of February 1919, and was purchased by Madho Lal. Madho Lal brought a suit for recovery of possession of the grove by virtue of this auction-purchase. A counter-suit was brought by the appellant, Gopi Das, in which he claimed possession of the grove, at least in respect of one-half of it. It appears that some disputes arose between Parsotam and Gopi Das before the auction-sale, and a case was instituted in the Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That case was compromised on the 28th of May 1918, and in that compromise it was stated that Parsotam Das was to remain in possession of a part of this grove and Gopi Das was to remain in possession of another p Article The Criminal Court decided the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All539; 69Ind.Cas.845
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the minor sons of Deo Narain Singh, defendant respondent No. 4, against the latter and some other persona on the allegation that a Bale executed by Deo Narain Singh and his brother, Udit Singh, in respect of certain property, was invalid on, the ground that the said property was joint ancestral property. It appears that Deo Narain Singh and Udit Singh, his brother, executed a deed of gale, on the 28th November 1910, in respect of the property detailed in the plaint in favour of one Kali Charan Ahir in lieu of Rs. 400. Subsequent to the sale, Ram Sarup Singh, the appellant before us, sued and obtained possession of the property sold on the ground of pre-emption. The minor sons of Deo Narain Singh, after a lapse of ten years, brought a suit for the recovery of possession of the property conveyed by the deed of 28th November 1910, on the allegation that the said property was joint and ancestral and that the sale by their father and their uncl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All54; (1923)ILR45All164; 69Ind.Cas.840
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises suit of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for a declaration that a certain sale deed of a shop, executed by five members of a joint family, was null and void as against the plaintiffs who were also members of that family. The plaintiffs are all minors, except the plaintiff No. 1, who has just attained majority. The sale took place on the 1st of October, 1915, and the suit was brought on the 27th of November, 1920. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act. The first court held that the plaintiffs were ad been in possession of the property and, therefore, no further relief could be asked for and Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act had no application. On appeal, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that because of a lease (kabuliat) executed by one of the vendors, on the 30th of September, 1919, in favour of the ven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All154
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. An office report has been put up before us in which it is stated that the amount of court fee paid on the plaint was insufficient and that a further sum of Rs. 385 was payable on the plaint. Dr. Agarwala disputes the correctness of the office report and we have therefore to decide whether the amount of court fee payable on the plaint was or was not sufficient. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage made in 1863. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 960. It provided that the, mortgagee was to remain in possession, appropriate the usufruct, deduct out of it the amount of interest payable on the mortgage which was at the rate of fifteen, annas per cent, per mensem, and appropriate the balance towards the principal. The mortgagors remained in possession of a part of the property upon an undertaking to pay rent for that part. In the present suit the plaintiffs sought to redeem the mortgage on the allegation that the full ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All261; 80Ind.Cas.1021
1. An office report has been put up before us, in which it is stated that the amount of Court-fee paid on the plaint was insufficient and that a further sum of Rs. 385 was payable on the plaint. Dr. Agarwala disputes the correctness of the office report and we have therefore to decide whether the amount of Court-fee payable on the plaint was or was not sufficient. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage made in 1863. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 960. It provided that the mortgagee was to remain in possession, appropriate the usufruct, deduct out of it the amount of interest payable on the mortgage which was at the rate of fifteen annas per cent. per mensem, and appropriate the balance towards the principal. The mortgagors remained in possession of a part of the property upon an undertaking to pay a rent for that p Article In the present suit the plaintiffs sought to redeem the mortgage on the allegation that the full amount of the mortgage including intere...
Tag this Judgment!