Allahabad Court January 1924 Judgments
Raja Suraj Pal Singh Vs. Ganesh Das and anr. and Chhidda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All233
Lindsay, J.1. This application must succeed. The suit was tried in the Court of Small Causes and the defendants, who are the applicants here, put forward the plea that the suit was not cognizable in the Small Cause Court. The lower court decided this issue against the defendants and gave a decree to the plaintiff.2. It is necessary to state the facts which are relevant to the matter now under discussion. It appears that Ganesh Das, the first defendant, held a simple money decree against one Chhidda who was impleaded as defendant No. 8.3. In execution of his decree he attached and brought to sale certain trees which were standing on the occupancy holding of his judgment-debtor.4. After the trees had been sold, but apparently before they were cut down, the present plaintiff, Raja Suraj Pal Singh, the zamindar, brought a suit for a declaration that these trees were not liable to be taken in execution as being the property of the judgment-debtor Chhidda, but that they belonged to him. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. His Highness, the Maharaja of Benares and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All355
Lindsay and Ryveas, JJ.1. These three second appeals have arisen out of suits for profits under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act. The property in respect of which the profits were claimed is situated in the Allahabad district and it is admitted that His Highness the Maharaja of Benares is one of the co-sharers in each of the villages in respect of which these suits for profits were brought.2. His Highness the Maharaja was made a defendant in each of the three suits, and as against him both the courts below have dismissed all the suits on the ground that no decrees could be passed against His Highness on the ground that the consent of Government had not been obtained to the institution of the suits against him. In other words, the courts below applied the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. We have 'now before us three second appeals in which the plaintiff challenges the correctness of the decision of the courts below. The case for the appellant (the appellant is th...
Tag this Judgment!Bandhu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All662; 81Ind.Cas.436
1. The appellants, Bandhu and Bachcha, have been found guilty by the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur of the offence of having murdered a man called Dina on the night of the 19-20th April 1923 in the village of Paikol in Deoria Tahsil of the Gorakhpur District. They have been sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. The referrence inconfirmation is also before us.2. The story is that Dina, who had formerly been a resident of Paikol but who some years ago had shifted his residence to a village called Bari in Bihar which is some 14 miles from Paikol, his brother-in-lawRajinandan of Bari, and another man called Ram Prasad of Bari were on the night in question returning from Sohnag in the Gorakhpur District,where they had been to a fair, towards Bari, and that they were spending the night in Paikol sleeping on blankets near a well just outside the inhabited area. The story continues that about midnight or a little before, a number of men came out of the night. Some of them comm...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Das and anr. Vs. Raja Suraj Pal Sing and Chhidda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All537; 78Ind.Cas.371
Lindsay, J.1. This application must succeed. The suit was tried in the Court of Small Causes and the defendants, who are the applicants here, put forward the plea that the suit was not cognizable in the Small Cause Court. The lower Court decided this issue against the defendants and gave a decree to the plaintiff.2. It is necessary to state the facts which are relevant to the matter now under discussion. It appears that Ganesh Das, the first defendant, held a simple money decree against one Chhidda who was impleaded as defendant No. 3.3. In execution of his decree he attached and brought to sale certain trees which were standing on the occupancy holding of his judgment-debtor.4. After the trees had been sold, but apparently before they were cut down, the present plaintiff, Raja Suraj Pal Singh, the zemindar, brought a suit for a declaration that these trees were not liable to be taken in execution as being the property of the judgment-debtor, Chhidda, but that they belonged to him. The...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kanhaya Lal Vs. His Highness the Maharaja Sri Prabhu NaraIn Singh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.559
1. These three second appeals have arisen out of suits for profits under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act. The property in respect of which the profits were claimed is situated in the Allahabad District and it is admitted that His Highness the Maharaja of Benares is one of the co-sharers in each of the villages in respect of which these suits for profits were brought.2. His Highness the Maharaja was made a defendant in each of the three suits and as against him both the Courts below have dismissed all the suits on the ground that no decrees could be passed against His Highness on the ground that the consent of Government had not been obtained to the institution of the suits against him. In other words, the Courts below applied the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. We have now before us three second appeals in which the plaintiff challenges the correctness of the decision of the Courts below. The case for the appellant (the appellant is the same in all three cases...
Tag this Judgment!Dodi Singh Vs. Pitambar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All319
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This revision has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by Mr. Justice Mukerji. The reasons for his referring it are contained in the referring order of the 9th of January, 1924, and are as follows:The question raised in this revision is whether an application, which was dismissed for default, that application itself being one for the restoration of a suit which was decided ex parte, can lie.On this point there seems to be no authority of this Court. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Bipin Behari Shaha v. Abdul Barik (1916) I.L.R. 44 Calc. 950, and the Patna High Court, in the case of Ramgulam v. Sheo Deonarain (1919) 4 Patna L.J., 287, have taken contrary views.In view of the importance of the question, I refer it to a larger Bench. The second question involved in this application is much easier to decide. But as the more important question is to be decided by a larger Bench, both the questions may be put up before that Bench.2. We prefer the Calcutta vie...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kanhai Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All354
Stuart, J.1. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Kanhailal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.720
Stuart, J.1. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Tota Ram and ors. Vs. Gouri Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.582
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of this case are these. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, with his brother Shibahai, obtained a us ufructuary mortgage from the ancestors of the appellants on 29th August 1905, On the same date, the mortgagors executed a rent-note, by which they agreed to pay to the mortgagees Rs. 7-12-0 per month as rent of the house mortgaged. Some time later, the mortgagees obtained a simple money decree against the mortgagors. In execution of that decree they attached the interest of the judgment-debtors in the house, viz., a right to redeem. The judgment-debtors objected and said that it was wrong to describe them as mortgagors and that they were the full owners of the house. They added that, they apprehended that if they were described as mere mortgagors, the property might fetch a small value. Notice was given to the decree-holders but they were not present when the application was disposed of. The execution Court held, by decision dated 29th April 1920,...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.563
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is, whether the defendant was entitled to construct his wall in such a manner as to block a window in the verandah of the plaintiff which opened towards the land of the defendant. The window had been in existence for more than twenty years. The Court of first instance refused to direct the demolition of the wall by which the window was blocked, holding that the construction had not had the effect of materially interfering with the access of light and air to the verandah of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, however, thought that as the effect of the construction of the wall was to block the window entirely, the plaintiff was entitled to have the obstruction removed in order that the access of light and air through the window might remain unaffected. In doing so, it disregarded the conditions of the locality, inasmuch as the verandah of the plaintiff had sufficient access of light and air from the other sides and the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »