Allahabad Court June 1923 Judgments
Udal and ors. Vs. Chaudhuri Gulab Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.813
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are sole proprietors of a parcel of waste land situated in a village called Singauli Purbea. The contesting defendants leave constructed a house upon the parcei on land in question. The plaintiffs came into Court claiming the ejectment of the said defendants, with permission to the latter to remove the materials of their house before vacating the site if they should be inclined to do so. Facts were alleged in the plaint fully sufficient to warrant the plaintiffs in claiming the relief sought for. The difficulty about the case is that the lower Appellate Court has not found in favour of the plaintiffs on the questions of fact raised by the pleadings; nevertheless, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that, on the facts found by him, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed. It is contended in second appeal that the learned District Judge was in error in taking this view. It seems advisable to give the facts found in the ver...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.103
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. Govind Ram applies in revision against the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore who had modified an order of the Magistrate of the First Class of Cawnpore. The appellant was convicted under Section 9 (e) of the Opium Act of 1878 as being a person who in contravention of the A.ct had imported opium into British India. He was sentenced to 12 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. His application does not, of course, relate in revision to either of these matters but it has reference to a sum of Rs. 9,000 which when produced before the Court were represented by notes cut into halves forming two bundles. One was in the possession of Govind Ram when he was arrested and the other halves were in the possession of one Kanhaiya Lal. Also there was found on Govind Ram a sum of Rs. 4,700 in whole notes. The Magistrate ordered the confiscation of the Rs. 4,700 and of the two halves of Rs. 9,000 notes representing a total value of Rs. 13,700...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh Vs. Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All828; 75Ind.Cas.922
Piggott, J.1. The defendant to the present suit had brought a suit against the present plaintiff for arrears of rent under the Tenancy Act, claiming that the latter was his tenant in respect of certain laud. The Trial Court dismissed that suit, but it was decreed by the District Judge on first appeal on the 18th of July 1916. Against that decree Ram Nath, the present plaintiff, appealed to this Court. Unfortunately, his appeal was not disposed of until the 19th of December 1918, when the decision of the District Judge was reversed and the decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit was restored. There was an appeal against this decision under the Letters Patent, but that appeal failed. In the interval between the 18th of July 1916 and the 19th of December 1918, the present defendant, Man Singh, had taken advanatge of the position which he occupied as holding a decree for rent passed by the District Judge, to realise the rent of the same land from Ram Nath, for each of three successiv...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Darbari Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All749
Walsh, J.1. On the whole I am unable to accept this recommendation. The matter has been very fully argued, and I agree that the Sessions Judge had ground for referring the matter, but the explanation of the District Magistrate* throws an entirely different light on at least two points, if not all of them. Further, the case is clearly a different one from that-which has been referred to, decided by myself, namely the case of Ashiq Ali v. Emperor (1923) 21 A.L.J. 513 and the report shows the danger of reporting cases which are really only decisions on particular-findings.2. Dealing first with the general observations contained in my previous judgment: Although it is clear from the report that I was prepared to interfere on the single ground that the-Magistrate had made private inquiries, it is equally clear to myself from the language which I used, that although the report in the Allahabad Law Journal, as is so often the case, fails to state the facts and does not give the judgment of th...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Dayal Vs. Lallu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.717
1. On the 25th of February, 1920, the defendant Lallu Mal executed in favour of the plaintiff Shambhu Dayal a promissory note for Rs. 8,000. The document begins with the following recital, 'I have to-day taken a sum of Rs. 8,000 in cash for payment to Ram Chander Kedar Nath, commission agents of Meerut. On the same date Lallu Mal executed a receipt for the sum of Rs. 8,000, beginning with the words, 'I have received to the last farthing the sum of Rs. 8,000 in respect of the note of hand executed by me in favour of Shambhu Dayal. Nothing now remains unpaid out of the amount of the said note of hand.' This receipt was attested by two witnesses. Piarey Lal and Timmal Singh, and as it happens each witness has appended to this signature a certain note. Piarey Lal notes that he attested the receipt at the request of Lallu Mal. The ordinary meaning of such a note by an attesting witness would certainly be that he had not seen Lallu Mal with his own eyes execute the receipt, but had attested ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Munir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.19
ORDER1. Certain apparatus for the distillation of spirit was found in the house of the applicant and some parts of it were found to contain fermented Mahua and Mahua spirit which was not of Government manufacture. These facts establish that he was in possession of apparatus for the manufacture of Mahua spirit, which is an excisable article, and also that he had manufactured that article. He has been convicted of the offence of manufacturing an excisable article, mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 34 of the C.P. Excise Act, 1915 and also of the offence of possessing materials for such manufacture, mentioned in clause (f) of the same Section. For each offence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks, with an express order that the two periods of imprisonment shall not be concurrent.(2) For the applicant it is contended that the offence of manufacture necessarily includes that of possession, and the two offences cannot be called 'distinct' for the purposes of Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Dewari Gajraj Singh Vs. Sri Thakurji Maharaj Radha Rawanji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All260; 74Ind.Cas.894
Ryves, J.1. This appeal raises a somewhat interesting point of law. In 1919 Buddhu brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Phaphund, in the Mainpuri District, against the present appellant in which he stated that the property in suit belonged to an idol, Sri Thakurji Maharaj Radha Ramanji, and that he was manager on behalf of the said Thakurji and he sued for possession. Various defences were raised to that suit and it was dismissed by the Munsif in a very short judgment. He held that as the property belonged to the idol the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. Then, on the 3rd issue, namely, whether a shedari in dispute belongs to the temple or to the defendant he found as follows: 'The allegation that the shedari in dispute belongs to the temple is unsubstantiated. The plaintiff could produce one witness and himself and he refrained from giving any evidence at all. The issue is decided in the negative. And the order as that the suit be dismissed with costs. The plaintiff appea...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Paleshwari Prasad Vs. Shankar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-23-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.969
1. The only plea urged in this appeal is that the mortgage sued on was not proved. It has been found by the Courts below that the attesting witnesses had been won over and gave evidence hostile to the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined the writer of the deed to prove execution, under Section 71 of the Evidence Act and his evidence has been rested, The appellant's contention is that it if necessary that this witness should have been able to swear that both the attesting, witnesses were present when the execution: signed the deed and that they witnessed it. This point is concluded Against him by the authority both of this High Court and of the Patna High Court. In Narain Das v. Dilawar 52 Ind. Cas. 830 : 17 A.L.J. 141 : 41 A. 250 it was held by a Ber.ch consisting of Richards C. J., and Banerji, J., that if the mortgage appeared on the face of it to have been executed in the presence of more than one person and it was proved in the manner prescribed by Section 71 of the Evidence Act, this...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Shyam Lal Vs. Badri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All31; 75Ind.Cas.784
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out a suit for the redemption of a mortgage effected by the plaintiffs, Badri and Kidar, in favour of the defendant on the 23rd of December 1915. The mortgage was effected for a sum of Rs. 135, which was re-payable with interest at 2 per cent, per mensem compoundable with monthly rests. The plaintiffs pleaded that they never agreed to pay interest at 2 per cent, per mensem with monthly rests, and that the above term was entered in the bond without their knowledge, ' They further pleaded that the interest claimed was, in any case, hard and unconscionable. The trial Court found that there was no proof of undue influence exercised by the creditor and that the terms entered in the bonds were binding on the plaintiffs. It decreed the entire claim of the plaintiffs accordingly. The lower Appellate Court, however, refused to allow interest at -the stipulated rate with monthly rests. It observed that the plaintiffs were illiterate persons and ignorant of t...
Tag this Judgment!Balgobind Misra and anr. Vs. Sheo Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All744
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor Gaya was a zamindar of patti Subhao. He executed two sale-deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and defendant No. 7, respectively. Under the first sale-deed he purported to sell his 2 annas and 8 pies share in the patti, and under the second a number of plots specified therein as fixed-rate holdings. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Sheo Nandan, defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 7 is his wife.. The plaintiffs brought this suit to pre-empt both these transfers on the allegation that they together constituted one transaction in favour of the defendant family. There was also some dispute as to the actual sale consideration. The plaintiffs alleged that they were co-sharers in the same patti with the vendor, and under the custom' prevailing in the mahal, they were entitled to pre-empt the sale.2. On behalf of the defendants the existence of the custom of pre-emption was denied. It...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »