Allahabad Court March 1924 Judgments
Daya Ram Vs. Thakuri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All668; (1924)ILR46All622; 83Ind.Cas.21
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of a Small Cause Court decree. The facts are that the plaintiff is the usufructuary mortgagee of an occupancy holding under a mortgage executed in the year 1919. His case is that he has been dispossessed by a third party and, therefore, under a covenant contained in the mortgage deed he claims to recover the mortgage money from the mortgagor. It has been repeatedly held that a mortgage of an occupancy holding under the present Tenancy Act is illegal. The court below refers to two such rulings, the latest being that in Har Prasad Tiwari v. Sheo Gobind Tiwari (1922) I.L.R. 44 All. 486. That ruling entirely covers the present case. The court refused to recognize the transaction in any way, even by allowing a suit for the mortgage money on the basis of a personal covenant contained in the mortgage. The same principle has been laid down with reference to another class of suits in Vilayat Husain v. Misram (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 396:Once it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Debi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All623
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur under the following circumstances. Two persons Debi Ram and Bahrain were accused of the theft of a drum under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The trying Magistrate acquitted them and ordered the drum to be restored to them. The complainants applied in revision to the District Magistrate urging that the accused had been wrongly acquitted and that they should be convicted and punished. The learned District Magistrate declined to entertain the revision, but, holding that the order under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was appealable and considering that the weight of evidence was in favour of the drum being the property of the complainants, he set aside the order of the trial court and directed the delivery of the drum to the complainants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court, holding that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction. This is the...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Ram and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All675; 81Ind.Cas.992
Daniels, J.1. This is a Reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur under the following circumstances. Two persons, Debi Ram and Bahrain, were accused of the theft of a drum under Section 380 Indian Penal Code. The Trying Magistrate acquitted them and ordered the drum to be restored to them. The complainants applied in revision to the District Magistrate urging that the accused had been wrongly acquitted and that they should be convicted and punished. The learned District Magistrate declined to entertain the revision but holding that the order under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, was appealable and considering that the weight of evidence was infavour of the drum being the property of the complainants, he set aside the Order of the Trial Court and directed the delivery of the drum to the complainants. The learned Additional Sections Judge has referred the case to this Court holding that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction. This is the second case in w...
Tag this Judgment!Damri Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.711
Ryves, J.1. There was a bad dacoity committed in the Fatehpur District, in the course of which two men were killed and several other persons were seriously injured and property including a quantity of untensils were carried away. The fact that the dacoity was attended with unusual violence is really not relevant in this case. Damri has been charged under Section 216-A of the Indian Penal Code with having harboured the dacoits. It has been found that the dacoits took with them a pony belonging to Damri to the scene of the dacoity, and loaded it with some of the utensils which were looted. The object apparently with which this pony was taken was to help them in carrying away their booty. If this was done with the consent of Damri, he could certainly have been tried and convicted of abetment of the dacoity. He however, has not been tried under that charge, but for having harboured the dacoits. Having regard to the definition of 'harbour' given in Section 216-B, it seems to me that the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ilias Ali and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal and anr. and Syed Intizam Ali ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All620
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for a declaration that a mortgage decree of the 12th of May, 1919, is not binding on the plaintiffs who are minors. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs' father died in 1903 leaving seven sons. Most of these sons were minors and their eldest brother, the defendant Niaz Ali, was appointed their guardian by the District Judge. On the 8th of April, 1911, Niaz Ali as guardian made an application to the District Judge for permission to mortgage certain property belonging to the minors for a sum of Rs. 200 for payment of debts. The District Judge gave sanction for the execution of a usufructuary mortgage for a sum of Rs. 200. In contravention of this permission, the guardian proceeded to execute a simple mortgage, carrying interest, for a sum of Rs. 400. The mortgagees subsequently brought a suit on this mortgage impleading the minors under the guardianship of Niaz Ali and obtained a decree. The plaintiffs ...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal and anr. Vs. Syed Ilias Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All751; 79Ind.Cas.556
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for a declaration that a mortgage-decree of 12th May 1919 is not binding on the plaintiffs who are minors. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs' father died in 1903 leaving seven sons. Most of these sons were minors and their eldest brother, the defendant Niaz Ali, was appointed their guardian by the District Judge. On 8fch April 1911 Niaz Ali as guardian made an application to the District Judge for permission to mortgage certain property belonging to the minors for a sum of Es. 200 for payment of debts. The District Judge gave sanction for the execution of a usufructuary mortgage for a sum of Rs. 200. In contravention of this permission the guardian proceeded to execute a simple mortgage, carrying interest for a sum of Rs. 400. The mortgagees subsequently brought a suit on this mortgage impleading the minora under the guardianship of Niaz Ali and obtained a decree. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration th...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Ram Tiwari and ors. Vs. NaraIn Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All745; (1924)ILR46All617; 79Ind.Cas.1036
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. The three plaintiffs are the sons of one Ram Nandan against whom a money decree was passed, in execution of which an ancestral house and grove were sold. The house and grove were purchased by the defendant Narain Prasad Kai, who was also the decree-holder. The purchase was made for a sum of Rs. 86. The suit which gave rise to the decree was brought against Ram Nandan and his two brothers for damages in respect of cutting trees and for demolition of a building which was alleged to be an encroachment. The plaintiffs were not parties to the suit. The decree was executed in 1914 and the sale took place on 16th of January, 1916. On the defendant Narain Prasad Rai not being able to obtain possession, he brought a suit for possession and obtained a decree in 1920. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale of 16th of January, 1916, and the subsequent decree for possession of 1920, to which they were no parties were not binding on...
Tag this Judgment!Chandradip Tewari and ors. Vs. Babu Jadunandan Singh and BalnaraIn Sin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All573; 79Ind.Cas.1041
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff Jadunandan Singh to set aside a mortgage and mortgage-decree obtained against his father Bal Narain Singh on the ground of fraud and want of legal necessity. The plaintiff's father executed a mortgage in favour of the ancestor of the answering defendants. The latter brought a suit' on the mortgage impleading both the plaintiff and his father. The plaintiff was at the time a minor. His father was at first named as his guardian ad litem but refused to act. The Nazir of the Court was then appointed guardian. Although notices had been served in connection with the (nomination of the plaintiff's father as his guardian, it appears that no second notice was served on the minor when the Nazir of the Court was appointed nor were any funds provided for the latter to defend the suit. Both the Courts have found that there was no fraud on the part of the defendants but the learned District Judge has held on the authority of Bhagwan Dayal v. Param...
Tag this Judgment!Parshadi and ors. Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All570
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this case had been ejected by the defendant by a suit under the Agra Tenancy Act from a certain plot of land as being non-occupancy tenants. The suit against them was decided ex parte. They alleged that notice was not served on them and made an attempt in the revenue court to get the ex parte decree set aside, but the finding was against them and their application was dismissed. They filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the civil court alleging that the whole proceedings in the revenue court were tainted by fraud of the present defendant, who in collusion with the peon pretended to get notices served on them, whereas in fact no notices were served and the plaintiffs knew this. On this allegation they asked for a declaration that the revenue court decree should be cancelled and that it should be declared that the land in dispute was a grove and possessed by the plaintiffs as grove-holders. The revenue court decree was described as ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Prasad Vs. Ghulam Ala-ud-dIn Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All689; (1924)ILR46All571
Daniels and Dalal, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly in execution proceedings. The plaintiff decree-holder had brought a suit for damages for Rs. 5,346 for failure on the part of the defendant to deliver sugarcane juice. A decree was passed in terms of a compromise arrived at between, the parties. The terms of the decree were that the defendant was to pay Rs. 2,600 to the plaintiff within one month of the date of decree and on his failure to do so, he was to be liable to pay simple interest at 3 per cent, per mensem from the date of the decree. Payment was not made by the judgment-debtor within the time stipulated, so the decree-holder applied for execution for the principal sum of Rs. 2,600 with interest at the stipulated rate. The judgment-debtor objected that the contract was penal, and that he should be relieved from the burden thereof. The learned Subordinate Judge held that though the contract was embodied in a decree, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »