Allahabad Court June 1926 Judgments
Faqirullah and anr. Vs. Wali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All714; 97Ind.Cas.337
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit for possession of a compound containing three thatched kachcha houses. The finding of the Court below is that these houses are structures of a permanent character within the meaning of Section 60 of the Easements Act, and that they were erected by the license of the former zamindars. On these findings the learned District Judge dismissed the suit. Two points have been urged before me: (1) That the finding as to the structures being permanent is unsatisfactory and should not be accepted as a finding of fact binding in second appeal: (2) that inasmuch as the license was granted by the former zamindars who have transferred their rights to the plaintiffs the license has ceased to exist in virtue of Section 59 of the Easements Act.2. On the first point the lower appellate Court says that there is no dispute that the defendants live and have lived for some time in the building in issue and intend to do so in future, and that under these circumstances there is no...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mt. Har Piari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All737; 97Ind.Cas.44
1. This is an appeal by Government against an acquittal of a family of three persons, namely, Balwant Singh, his wife Mt. Durga, and their married daughter Mt. Har Piari, who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri on a charge of having poisoned Har Piari's husband. If it were not that the learned Judge has expended upon this quite short case more than 7 solid printed pages of matter, we should have said that the case was free from any difficulty, and we have no hesitation in agreeing with all the assessors in finding that the wife administered the dhatura poison of which her husband undoubtedly died.2. Before turning to the express findings of the learned Judge, which we shall have to mention in a moment, we may say broadly what is really elementary in connexion with cases of circumstantial evidence, that a violent presumption arises-perhaps one of the strongest presumptions known to the law-when a man dies in his own house surrounded by his own family, and poisoned shortly a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Janki and ors. Vs. Rustam Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All748; 97Ind.Cas.139
Daniels, J.1. The principal point in this appeal, and the only point which in the view which I take it is necessary to decide, is a question of limitation. The suit was one by the plaintiffs, Rahim Khan and Rustam Khan, claiming the share to which they are entitled under Mahomedan Law in the estate of Wazir Khan. The suit is brought against Wazir Khan's widow Mt. Janki, his daughter Mt. Dhora, and Nur Khan, son of Sardar Khan, minor under the guardianship of Mt Dhora. Mt. Janki purported to make a gift of the entire estate on 1st February 1921, in favour of the other two defendants. The question is whether the suit is governed by Article 123 or Article 144. The Courts below have held that Art 144 is applicable and that although the suit was brought more than twelve years after Wazir Khan's death,, it is within time because the possession of Mt. Janki being that of a coheir could not be adverse to the plaintiffs. If Article 123 applies, the suit was brought against a co-heir who is neit...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behar Singh and anr. Vs. Bans Gopal Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All59; 97Ind.Cas.487
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a sale-deed executed in favour of Ram Harakh in the year 1913 was a benami transaction and that the plaintiff was the real purchaser and is owner in possession of the property. The plaintiff is Ram Harakh's father and the sale was executed when Ram Harakh was a boy at school. The answering defendants have purchased the property in execution of a decree against Ram Harakh. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit. They find that the plaintiff supplied the money and was the real purchaser. Part of the sale consideration consisted of the satisfaction of a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and the remainder was provided from the plaintiff's separate earnings, the plaintiff being in service at Calcutta. The property has, therefore, been held to be the self-acquired property of plaintiff in which Ram Harakh had no right.2. The defendants appear to have been shifting their ground from time to time. In the Court be...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Vs. GangadIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All69; 97Ind.Cas.368
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Behari Lal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpur, dated the 4th of May 1926, refusing to order further enquiry into the complaint filed by him against Gangadin and Baboo Lal for criminal misappropriation. At the outset I must state that there are some sentences in this judgment, which really have no bearing on the case and give a view of the law of misappropriation which is wrong. The Judge says:Wrongful gain or wrongful loss is not an essential part of the offence of criminal misappropriation, and a person is not accused by reason of it.2. If the a learned Judge had only taken the trouble to read the definition of the offence, and had looked at Section 24 of the Penal Code, defining the word 'dishonestly' I am positively certain that the learned Judge would not have written what he did in the judgment. Clearly a man is accused of an offence of breach of trust, because he had misappopriated property dishone...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Nageshar Dat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All78
1. This is an appeal by Defendant No. 5 arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain zamindari property by ejectment of the defendant. On the 13th April 1909, a registered lease for 11 years was executed by the then proprietor Sheik Mahmudullah in favour of one Bhawani Charan. This lease was of a five-anna zamindari share in an undivided mahal. The contesting defendant is a sub-lessee from Bhawani Charan's representatives and the term of the lease has now admittedly expired. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have acquired a one anna and odd pie share in the proprietary interest of the lessors and two anna seven pie and odd-share as lessees from the proprietors. The contesting defendant, on the other hand, is in possession of the entire five annas. The plaintiffs claim that the term of the lease having expired, the defendants were not entitled to hold on and they were liable to ejectment through the civil Court.2. The main contention put forward on behalf of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaneshwar Tewari Vs. Antu Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All115
Daniels, J.1. In this case the Court below has granted a decree recognizing the right of the defendants to stack manure on a certain plot of waste land, but otherwise confirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff by the trial Court. The plaintiff appeals as regards the right to stack manure, He urges: (1) That a tenant cannot acquire a right of easement against his landlord as laid down by the Full Bench in Udit Singh v. Kashi Ram [1892] 14 All. 185; (2) that a right to store manure cannot be acquired by any length of time.2. As regards the first plea, the decree is not given against the landlord but against the plaintiff who is a perpetual lessee of the plot. The Full Bench ruling does not, therefore, apply to it. No authority is adduced in support of the second plea and 1 can see no reason why a right to stack manure could not be acquired in the same way as any other similar right. Such rights have, in fact, been recognized by the High Court in more than one instance.3. The resp...
Tag this Judgment!Tarkeshwar Vs. Kalka Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All144
Daniels, J.1. This appeal involves one short point. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage of 7th May 1876. The defendants asserted that it could not be redeemed without the plaintiffs redeeming at the same time a tacking mortgage of 12th August 1891, which contained a condition that the Mortgagor would not redeem it without at the same time redeeming the earlier mortgage. The trial Court gave effect to this defence. The lower appellate Court has rejected it on the ground that whereas the original mortgage was executed by two persons Kalka and Lokhai the mortgage of 1891 was executed by Kalka alone. This view has the support of the Bench ruling in Muhammad Husain v. Sheodarshan Das [1907] 4 A.L.J. 176. The principle is that one mortgager by executing a tacking bond cannot affect the rights of his co-mortgagors to redeem the original mortgage. The appellant seeks to distinguish this ruling on the ground that the co-mortgagor Lokhai was dead when the second mortgage was executed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejpal and anr. Vs. Kalyan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.256
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for redemption which has been dismissed. The finding of the Court below is that the mortgagee purchased the equity of redemption at a Court-auction sale as far back as 20th November, 1888. The trial Court held that this sale was anullity, having been effected under a simple money-decree in contravention of Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act which was then in force. But, as the Court below points out, a Full Bench of this Court has held in Lal Bahadur Singh v. Abharan Singh 27 Ind. Cas. 795 : 37 A. 165 : 13 A.L.J. 138, that a sale in contravention of this section was merely irregular and was valid unless set aside before confirmation. The Calcutta High Court has taken the same view in two cases, Ashutosh Sikdar v. Bthari Lal Kirtania 35 C. 61 : 11 C.W.N. 1011 : 6 C.L.J. 320 and Uttam Chandra Daw v. Raj Krishna Dalai 55 Ind. Cas. 157 : 47 C. 377 : 24 C.W.N. 229 : 32 C.L.J. 98. It is impossible for the appellants to conte...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Ballaw Prasad Vs. Dalip NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All718; 97Ind.Cas.344
1. This was a suit for money due on a simple mortgage executed by Ganga Bishen Singh, (father of three of the defendants) in favour of the plaintiff's father on the 26th August 1910. Defendants Nos. 2 to 16 were subsequent transferees.2. The only defendant who contested the suit was Harish Chand, Defendant No. 4, who purchased a portion of the mortgaged property at an auction sale held in execution of a simple money-decree obtained by one Mt. Parmawati against Ganga Bishen, the mortgagor.3. Among the defences set up by Harish Chand was the plea that Ganga Bishen as the father of a joint Hindu family was not authorized to mortgage the property without legal necessity. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove legal necessity and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.4. The plaintiff, in appealing to the Court of the District Judge, accepted the finding that legal necessity for the loan was not proved, but he contended that Harish Chand as a mere auction purchaser...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »