Allahabad Court November 1924 Judgments
Sheobodh Ram Teli Vs. Shiva Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All293
Mears, C.J.1. To-day's list contains under miscellaneous matters oases numbered 408|1, 408|3 and 408|4 of 1924. On the papers being presented to us, they proved to be references submitted by the Political Agent of the Benares State for the opinion of the High Court. They have been put into the list by virtue of certain correspondence which appears to have begun on the 20th of June, 1922, whereby the High Court wore asked whether they would agree to applications which had been submitted to His Highness the Maharaja in civil was from the Benares State Court being laid before a Judge of the High Court. The matter was put to the High Court as a reasonable thing to do and as a matter which would be of advantage to the subjects of the Maharaja of Benares and generally of benefit to the people also in this province; it might tend to keep the law uniform, A reply was sent in which it was pointed out that the High Court could have no jurisdiction to determine any points in the Benares State unl...
Tag this Judgment!Kalika Singh Vs. Ram Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All378; 87Ind.Cas.92
1. The question for consideration in this case is whether under the custom of pre-emption prevalent in the villages in which the property sold is situated the plaintiff is entitled to a right of pre-emption in the case of a sale otherwise than in favour of a stranger to the co-parcenary body. The property sold stood in several villages the wajib-ul-arzes of which have been produced in the case. The sale was made in favour of a co-sharer of the village. The plaintiff was also co-sharer; but he claimed a preferential right by reason of his being a paternal kinsman of the vendor. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the wajib-ul-arzes of the villages in question gave him a right of preference over the vendee but the lower appellate Court found that no such right of preference was given where a sale was made to a member of the co-parcenary body. The wajib-ul-arz of the village Madho Patti Khas provides that if any co-sharer wants to transfer his share the right of purchase shall...
Tag this Judgment!Gudri Singh and ors. Vs. Parsotam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All395
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order allowing an appeal from a review of judgment. The review of judgment was granted by the Munsif on the ground of the discovery of new and important evidence which could not by the exercise of due diligence have previously been discovered. It is now settled law that an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment is strictly limited to the ground set out in Order 47, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. This was decided in Khurshed Alam Khan v. Rahmat Ullah Khan (1918) 40 All. 68, and there are other cases of other High Courts to the same effect. The only ground alleged in the present case was that the application was in contravention of Rule 4 in that it was nod proved that the evidence could not have been produced at the original trial. Now it is an admitted fact that the evidence in question was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and could not by due diligence have been discovered by him earlier. The ground on ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Prasad and anr. Vs. Mt. Kishni and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All466; 87Ind.Cas.175
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision against an order passed by a Mansif allowing a plaint to be withdrawn under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is admitted that the order cannot be supported on the merits. The question is whether any revision lies. In Rahmat ullah v. Dharam Singh A.I.R. 1922 All. 185, Banerji, J. allowed an application in revision in precisely similar circumstances. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have taken the same view in Rajindra Lal v. Atal Bihari (1917) 44 Cal. 454 and Rai Kashibai v. Shidapa Anappa (1913) 37 Bom. 682. It is urged for the respondent that the same Judge who decided Rahmat Ullah v. Dharam Singh A.I.R. 1922 All. 185 was a member of a Bench which held that no revision lay in Jhunku Lal v. Bisheshar Das (1918) 40 All. 612. An examination of the two cases shows that they are not really contradictory. In Jhunku Lal v. Bisheshar Das (1918) 40 All. 612 the plaintiff based his application upon the fact that formal proof of a certain pl...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Brichh Singh and anr. Vs. Chhakauri Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All748
Mukerji, J.1. These are two appeals by the same set of plaintiffs and are directed against the same set of defendants.2. The facts of the case are given with sufficient detail in the almost exhaustive judgment of the learned District Judge. Only one point is not mentioned in that judgment, but on it there is no controversy.3. The plaintiffs predecessor-in-title Deoki Singh, made a usufructuary mortgage of sir plot bearing No. 90, dated the 27th of June, 1861, in favour of one Nandu Bhaiya. It is this mortgage that is being now sought to be redeemed by Deoki Singh's sons, the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants to the suit claim to be the proprietors of the entire property which once belonged to Deoki Singh under various transactions, most of which are detailed in the judgment of the learned District Judge. It appears that Deoki Singh, after executing the mortgage of the 27th of June, 1861, made a mortgage by conditional sale of his entire zamindari property on the 29th of September,...
Tag this Judgment!Harbans Singh and ors. Vs. Rajinder Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All277; 85Ind.Cas.1047
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision to gat revised an order of the District Judge of Aligarh dated the 25th of July, 1921, rather difficult to define and say under what Act or section it was passed.2. It is necessary to state briefly certain facts leading up do this application before disposing of it finally.3. Kunwar Mahendrajit's grand-father, Rao Umrao Singh, died in the year 1898, leaving a considerable estate behind him and considerable debts. It is admitted that some years afterwards, his three sons representing the three branches became separate in estate. In order to arrange for the payment of the debts that were outstanding, the three brothers, on the 1st of August, 1912, executed a dead of trust under which three trustees were appointed to take charge of the management of the entire estate and to pry out of its income the debts that; were standing against it Provisions ware made how in ease of the death of any of the trustees his successor should be appointed. W...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All308
Daniels, J.1. The applicant, Newaz Rai, has been convicted under Sections 147 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code and the other applicants under Sections 147 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code. On the findings of the learned Sessions Judge which have not been impugned before me on either side, it is difficult to see how the conviction can be sustained against any of the accused except Newaz Rai. He has been sentenced to fine only. The facts alleged by the prosecution are that the Sub-Inspector came to the village to arrest Newaz Rai. He did arrest him and took him to the Mukhia's house to be handcuffed. The arrest was a lawful arrest. Newaz Rai, however, struggled, got free and ran away. His reason for doing so seems to have been that he was performing funeral ceremonies of his deceased father and did not want to be arrested till the ceremonies were over. He came back of himself to the Sub-Inspector next day and asked that the arrest might be postponed. After accused got away, the Sub-Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Mangal Chand Vs. Ganpat Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All541
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree which has bean passed in accordance with an award under para 16 of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies and that objection must prevail. The case is covered by the ruling in Ajudhia Prasad v. Badar-ul-Hussain (1917) 39 All. 489. The learned Judge of the Court below proceeded strictly in accordance with the law. After the award was made certain objections to its validity were put in. He heard and determined those objections in accordance with law and decided that they were not valid. He thereupon proceeded under para 16 to pass the decree in terms of the award. From that decree no appeal lies. Still less can a revision lie on the grounds which are now urged. I dismiss this application with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Dip NaraIn Singh Vs. Jagmohan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All576; 87Ind.Cas.15
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are practically all admitted and are as follows:The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 9 to 12 are the appellants in this Court. Defendants Nos. 9 to 12 being away from the district were made pro forma defendants. They and the plaintiffs possessed the same right in the property in suit. The predecessors-in title of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 9 to 12 mortgaged plot No. 1763 which was their tenancy (presumably tenancy at fixed rate) for a period of 20 years in favour of the predecessors-in-title of defendants Nos. 1-8. This mortgage was executed on the 27th of June, 1901 and was redeemed on 22nd of June, 1921. The plaintiffs came to Court with the allegation that some six months before the institution of the suit the defendants encroached upon a portion of plot No. 1763 and built a house upon the same. They asked for the demolition of the construction and for the restoration of the site to its original position. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kharbar Vs. Abdul Raoof and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All815
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1325,1326 and 1327 Faslis.2. The plaintiffs claimed as mortgagees of a certain ex-proprietary holding. They sued two persons, the appellant Kharbar and one Baldeo on the allegation that they were the plaintiffs' tenants. Kbarbar pleaded that he had ceased to be a tenant, that he was ejected by Baldeo several years before the institution of the suit; and that Baldeo alone was in possession. Baldeo pleaded that he was not a tenant of the plaintiffs and that he had purchased the lands from the original tenants. He denied that the plaintiffs were mortgagees. He asserted his own possession and denied that Kharbar was in possession.3. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court found the following facts:He found that Baldeo purchased the holding from the original mortgagors; that Baldeo obtained possession in 1323 Fasli and has been in possession since; that Kharbar is not in possession; and that Baldeo is no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »