Allahabad Court June 1925 Judgments
Ramratan and ors. Vs. Durga Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All201
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a declaration that the minor plaintiffs along with Defendant 7 are occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground of res judicata. It appears that previous to the suit the fathers of the three plaintiffs instituted a suit in respect of the same property asking for the same declaration. That case was decided against them and their appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court. The plaintiffs who are minor admit the existence of the previous judgment but in the plaint they stated that their fathers did not look after the previous case properly, and on this ground they sought to evade its binding nature. There was no suggestion of any fraud or collusion in the plaint nor was there any issue framed on that point.2. The lower appellate Court has distinctly found that the previous suit was instituted by the former plaintiffs as managers of their respective families. That finding is fat...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ratan and ors. Vs. Durga Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.120
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the minor plaintiffs along with, defendant No. 7 are occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground of resjudicata. It appears that previous to the suit the fathers of the three plaintiffs instituted a suit in respect of the same property asking for the same declaration. That case was decided against them and their appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The plaintiffs who are minors admit the existence of the previous judgment but sin the plaint they stated that their fathers did not look after the previous case properly and on this ground they sought to evade its binding nature. There was no suggestion of any fraud or collusion in the plaint nor was there any issue framed on that point.2. The lower Appellate Court has distinctly found that the previous suit was instituted by the former plaintiffs as managers of their respective families. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Nageshwari Rai Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All67
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. The only point in dispute that remains for our consideration is as regards the grove which was planted by the mortgagee on the land during the continuance of the mortgage. The Courts below have held that no consent of the mortgagor for the planting of this grove was established and a learned Judge of this Court has declined to go behind that finding of fact. We agree that in second appeal that finding cannot be challenged.2. The only other point that has been argued is that the mortgagee is entitled; to cut away the timber and clear the ground of all trees. It is contended that the case falls under the second portion of Section 63 of the Transfer of Property Act and that this is a case where there has been an accession to the mortgaged property which is partly capable of separate possession or enjoyment without detriment to the principal property. This argument is based on the contention that a grove is capable of tw...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnath Singh and ors. Vs. Basdeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All136
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings on 13th May 1909. The judgment-debtors had executed a mortgage-deed of property situated in Bundelkhand in favour of the decree-holder. A preliminary decree for sale was obtained on 17th June 1918, which was followed up by a final decree on 20th December 1919, when an application for execution was filed and the decree-holder wanted to have the mortgaged property sold. An objection was raised by the judgment-debtors that the property being situated in Bundelkhand was not liable to be sold under Section 16, Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (U.P. Act 2 of 1903). This objection was allowed and the application was dismissed. After this the decree-holder filed an application purporting to been application under Section 9, sub-Cl. (3), of the Act requesting the Court to refer the case to the Collector with a view to the exercise of the power conferred upon him by sub Section 1 of Section 9. The objection was raised...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Sahu Vs. Sarju Prasad Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All308
Lindsay, J.1. These two cases relate to the same property which, as far as we are able to judge, consisted at one time of a series of three houses or enclosures. It is said that at one time before the present litigation began these premises were used as a thakurdwara and temple. The premises were sold in the month of July 1919, by one Sasju to Aziz Hasan for the sum of Rs. 599-15-0, and the cage which Aziz Hasan has put forward in both the suits out of which this appeal has arisen was that the property was not temple property, but was mere private property which be was entitled to purchase and which his vendor was entitled to sell.2. F.A. No. 132 of 1922 arises out of a Suit, No. 2 of 1921, brought in the Court of the District Judge of Gorakhpur. This suit purports to be a suit under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, Act 2 of 1863. Under this section of the Act in question any person who is interested in any mosque temple or religious establishment is entitled to bring a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Harakh Sonar Vs. Gopi Kishun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All120
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. This suit could have been dismissed on the ground much simpler than the one on which the lower appellate Court has dismissed it, though even that ground is sound.2. The defendant obtained a simple money decree against the plaintiff's father and attached his one-fourth share in a joint family property which belonged to the father and his brothers. Under the Privy Council ruling of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh (1880) 5 Cal. 148, the father's interest could be attached and seized in his lifetime. It was put up for sale and purchased at auction by the decree-holder himself. The decree-holder, however, did not apply for delivery of possession and the father died. Subsequently the plaintiff's uncles brought a suit for partition against the decree-holder-purchaser impleading the present plaintiff as a defendant. In this partition suit four lots were prepared and one lot consisting of a one-f...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Beti Bai Vs. Tantya Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All136a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by Mt. Beti Bai, defendant 1, arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that in 1895, a mortgage was made by five persons for a sum of Rs. 96 in favour of Bhola whose representatives are the appellant Mt. Beti Bai and defendant 2, who is made a pro forma respondent. The plaintiff 1 is one of the mortgagors. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 and defendants 3 to 6, are the representatives of the other four mortgagors.2. In 1905 three of the mortgagors, excluding the plaintiff 1 Tantya Singh and Mt. Kanji, applied under Section 6, Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act, requesting that the provisions of the Act be applied to them. In the written statement which they were required to submit under Section 8 they did not mention this mortgage-debt at all. It is also noteworthy that the other two mortgagors did not make any application under the Act. The order of the Judge under the Act was passed in July 1905.3. It is unnecessary to decide in this case whether only such p...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All30
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore recommending that a case under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of a First Class Magistrate at Cawnpore, should be stayed till a civil suit is finally disposed of. On the last occasion, when this case came up for hearing, the learned advocate for the accused contended that not only the hearing should be adjourned, but that the criminal proceedings should be quashed altogether. As the learned vakil who appears to oppose this reference had no notice of this objection I allowed the case to be postponed in order that he might be prepared to argue the point raised.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Kanhaiya Lal, accused, has set up a will, dated the 27th of March 1922, said to have been executed by a lady, Mt. Basanti, who died two days after. Some time after her death the Will was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, and after contest by the complainant Bhag...
Tag this Judgment!Mula Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All33; 90Ind.Cas.150
Banerji, J.1. The petitioner before me, Mula, was put up along with five other persons for trial before a Magistrate of the first class at Bijnor. The order of the Magistrate at the beginning says:2. The accused... have been sent up for trial for offences under Sections 457/411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Nagina Police.' It seems to me that the learned Magistrate, while writing the judgment, clearly forgot what was the charge he had himself framed against each of the accused, and what was the case he was trying. Different accused were charged with different offences on different dates. Mula, the petitioner, and his brother Harbansa were charged, according to the charge-sheet, which is before me, with having on the 11th of August 1924, broken open the house of Indra by night in order to commit theft,' an offence punishable under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. Kanhaiya was charged with the offence of being in possession of stolen property on the 7th of September 1924. Jhuna wa...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Behari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All44
Banerji, J.1. Brij Behari Lal has been, convicted of an attempt to commit theft,, and has under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh. The main contention before me is that when an accused person is convicted of an attempt to commit an offence, he cannot be made liable to enhanced punishment under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. A reference to Section 75 clearly shows that only when an accused is convicted of an offence under Ch. XII or Ch. XVII of the Indian Penal Code, that he is liable under the circumstances set out in that section to enhanced punishment. Now as the accused has been convicted not under Ch. XVII but under Ch. XXIII, in which Section 511 is to be found, the accused cannot be punished for anything more than what the law provides for, namely, half of the maximum term provided by Section 379, and he is not liable to enhanced punishment under Section 75. I am therefore, of opi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »