Allahabad Court July 1923 Judgments
Surajman Chaube Vs. Anjore Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All73; 79Ind.Cas.605
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In this case a preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal that no second appeal is maintainable. The suit was one of a Small Cause Court nature below Rs. 500 in value and as held in Harakh Ram Sarup (1890) I.L.R. 12 All. 579 and Narayan Parmanand v. Nagindas Bhaidas (1905) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 113, no second appeal lies against an order of execution of a decree in a suit of that kind. The petition of appeal can, however, be treated as a petition in revision. Let the petition be therefore, removed from the register of second appeals and registered as a petition in revision and dealt with as such.2. The case was then heard as an application in revision.3. Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad, for the applicant.4. Munshi Haribans Sahai, for the opposite party,Kanhaiya Lal, J.5. On the 11th of November, 1918, a decree for money was obtained by the decree-holder applicant against Musammat Rajwanti as a legal representative of her husband Mahip Shukul in accordance with a ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Zahur Hasan and ors. Vs. Mt. Shaker Banoo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All29
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a plot of land situated in Jhansi which was at one time occupied by a house belonging to Muhammad Zahur. Muhammad Zahur was a ryot. The zemindari rights of his father in the village were, it is said, sold some time before 1882. Muhammad Zahur worked as a karinda of his father-in-law, who hada zemindari share in Busgit; his wife and children lived in Busgit, while he kept up his connection with Jhansi. He died in 1887. The house in question fell into ruins some time afterwards and the question for consideration in this case is whether the defendants, who are the heirs of Muhammad Zahur, had abandoned the house after the death of Muhammad Zahur and allowed it to fall into ruins so as to entitle the zemindar, namely the defendant No. 9, to resume the land on which the said house stood and grant the right of occupancy thereof to the present plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent owns a house adjacent to the land in dispute an...
Tag this Judgment!Mukat Singh and ors. Vs. Misra Paras Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All726; 79Ind.Cas.106
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for the recovery of possession of a certain house and a wall which they allege to have purchased at an auction-sale held in execution of a decree against Mukat Singh and the other defendants. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they purchased the house on the 5th of November 1914 and got possession through Court on the il2th of January 1917 and that after such possession, had been obtained the defendant took the house from them von an agreement to pay a rent of Re. 1 per mensem. It was further stated that it was settled at the time that the plaintiffs would, when they would like, be entitled to have the house vacated. The defendants denied the tenancy and pleaded that they had no knowledge of the auction-sale, and that even if the defendants were proved to be the tenants of the plaintiffs, they could not have been ejected without notice. There was a further plea that they were cultivators an...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Singh Vs. Bhagwat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All170; 83Ind.Cas.54
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit in which the plaintiff Bhagwat Singh suing as a minor, through his next friend Ram Autar sought to recover possession of property sold by his father Gajadhar Singh on the ground that the property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and his father and that the sale was made without legal necessity. The sale was effected on 9th December 1914 fora sum of Rs. 2,499-11-3. The Court below has held that Rs. 1,780 of the sale price was for legal necessity or antecedent debt and has given the plaintiffs a decree subject to re-payment of this amount. There were a number of defendants to the suit, Gajadhar Singh himself, the original vendees, and subsequent transferees, but the only one with whom we are now concerned is the appellant Chandrika Singh. Chandrika Singh filed a pre-emption suit on the basis of the sale-deed executed by the plaintiff's father and obtained the property under a preemption decree dated the 7th August 1916.2. The two po...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Koeri Vs. Mt. Raj Roop Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All190
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 738 khasra which is sibilated in Mauza Shakulpura outside the skirts of Benares City. The village Shukulpura was granted to Mt. Asmeda Kanwar by the father of the plaintiff on the 9th of April, 1889 by an agreement which provided that she was to hold the same in her possession and enjoy the profits thereof for her maintenance during her lifetime without any power of alienation.2. While Mt. Asmedh Kunwar was so in possession of that village she granted a perpetual lease of the plot in dispute to Gopal, Ganga and Gopi for a premium of Rs. 100 on an agreement that the lessees would pay her a rent of Rs. 12 per annum and be entitled to use the land for planting a grove, constructing buildings or for any other purposes they liked. On the strength of that lease a grove consisting mostly of guava trees, was planted over the said land by the lessees and a ridge or mud wall was built around it for the protection of the trees.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Amjad Khan and ors. Vs. ShafiuddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All203
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house situated in the town of Ferozabad. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the site occupied by that house and allege that Mt. Khairatan and Hasan Amjad Khan, who were occupying that house have been wrongfully denying the title of the plaintiff's to the land in question. They seek the ejectment of the said occupants and implead certain other persons whom they describe as having been once in possession as - the heirs of Nur Khan, the original ryot.2. According to the plaintiffs the land' in question belonged to Azimuddin Khan by virtue of a purchase made from Rahim Ali on the 4th of December 1859 and Nur Khan had built a house thereon with the permission of his predecessor-in-title. It was also stated that after the death of Nur Khan two of his sons, Kale Khan and Sardar Khan, executed an agreement' on the 3rd of July 1865, by which they agreed to pay a ground rent of one anna per mensem and to vacate the land in case def...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Govind Pande Vs. Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All305; (1924)ILR46All70; 77Ind.Cas.35
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows:--On the 17th of January, 1919, one Panna Lal, who owned a one anna six pies share, sold a plot comprised in that share, namely, plot Mo. 177 together with two trees to Sahdeo and others defendants.2. On the 20th of September 1919, Panna Lal sold his entire one anna and six pies share to the same persons.3. A suit for pre-emption was brought by the plaintiff appellant, Ram Gobind Pande, for the purpose of pre-empting both these sales.4. It has been held by both the courts below that the plaintiff cannot pre-empt the first sale, that is to say, the sale of the isolated plot, on the ground that he had notice of the sale and had an opportunity of exercising his right to pre-empt which he refused to avail himself of It must be taken, therefore, for the purposes of the present decision that the first sale is not liable to pre-emption.5. The question, therefore, remains whether the plaintiff is entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Sayed Sultan HusaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Jwala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.506
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit for damages for certain trees alleged to have been wrongfully cut and for an injunction against the defendants forbidding them to cut any further trees in a plot numbered 378, The plaintiffs-appellants are the zemindars. They alleged in their plaint that the trees were of spontaneous growth, but pleaded in the alternative that even if they had been planted the first defendant, who is an occupancy tenant in the village, had no right to transfer them. The trees which have been cut were sold by the first defendant to the second and third defendants and cut down by them. The first defendant pleaded that he was the owner of the trees, which wee planted by his ancestor with the permission of the zemindar, and that he had a right to sell them. He also alleged a custom by which tenants planting a grove had a right to sell the trees. A great deal has been made in argument of the fact that the learned Judge finds that the wajibularz does not support the special cust...
Tag this Judgment!Chandu Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All186; 77Ind.Cas.236
Daniels, J.1. This a somewhat curious case. The applicant committed an assualt on the wife of a Civil Surgeon find was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The defence of insanity was raised at the trial. The medical evidence regarding the accused was conflicting. One Doctor thought him insane, but on the ether hand the Superintendent of the Bareilly Lunatic Asylum, under whose supervision he was placed, reported and gave evidence that he was not insane. Under these circumstances the learned Sessions Judge says that if the burden of proving affirmatively the man's unsoundness of mind had been on the prosecution he would say that it ha d not been discharged, but insanity being of a nature of a general exception which must be proved by the accused, he was of opinion that the defence had failed to prove inanity. This is a correct statement of the law and in view of the evidence of the Superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum I do not think that it can be challenged on the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Nihal Muhammad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All200; 85Ind.Cas.41
Walsh, J.1. In dealing with this Reference I am even more handicapped than was the learned Judge. It is really a question of fact. To some extent it is a question for experts. These questions of whether buildings correspond with sanctioned plans, many of which are not too precise or accurate in detail, are sometimes very difficult and require expert evidence and explanation, and I am practically without any material at all. It is impossible to decide between the respective merits and opinions of the Sessions Judge and the Magistrate respectively in this case, in a discussion of plans and erections neither of which I have seen. On three points of principle I can express my opinion. A Municipality taking proceedings for a penalty under this Act, ought to make its sanction and orders or conditions for new buildings or erections so conspicuously clear as to leave no room for controversy. If in a particular case before me as a Magistrate they failed to do so, I should dismiss the complaint....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »