Allahabad Court December 1927 Judgments
Faqira and anr. Vs. Hardewa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All172; 114Ind.Cas.177
Mukerji, J.1. A question has arisen in the course of the hearing of this appeal as to whether the whole appeal abates or only a part.2. The facts, which it would be necessary to consider in connexion with this point, are briefly as follows: The appellants, with two others instituted a suit for declaration of title. Their case was that in the khewat their proper share was 60 out of an entire quantity of 146 shares, the shares of defendants 1 to 3 was 79 out of the same quantity; and of defendants 4 to 8 seven out of the same quantity. According to the khewat the entire share was divided into 89 portions and the plaintiffs were recorded in respect of 3, defendants 1 to 3 in respect of 79 and the remaining defendants 4 to 8 with respect to 7 shares. The plaintiffs sought, as already stated, a declaration of title with the ultimate object of applying to the revenue Court for correction of the khewat.3. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 alone and they maintained, inter alia, that t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All185
Dalal, J.1. I cannot agree with the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court that a Sub-Inspector, while he is holding an investigation on a charge of house trespass in the house of A, has the right to enter the house of A's neighbour B. One Baldeo was caught at night in the house of Chheda Lal, a neighbour of the applicants, who are father and son. Baldeo's explanation to the police appears to have been that he was carrying on an intrigue with the applicant Jagannath's wife and the applicant Sunder Dal's mother, and was caught as he was escaping from the house of the applicant through the house of Cheda Lal. The Inspector thereupon desired to enter the house of the applicants to satisfy himself whether Baldeo's story was true in so far as the possibility of scaling the partition wall from the side of the applicant's house was concerned. The applicants protested and threatened to shoot the Sub-Inspector. Under Section 156, Criminal P.C., the local limits within which an officer-in-ch...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Lal Singh Vs. Jagraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All86
Walsh, J.1. This case gives rise to a question of some difficulty, which appears to be an open question so far as this Court is concerned, at any rate in recent years since the comparatively modern decisions of the Privy Council. The suit is brought by a minor to set aside a mortgage decree. Defendant 1 obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage executed by Bhagwant Singh and Imrat Singh, who are assumed for the purpose of this decision to have been, or to have represented, the two branches of a joint Hindu family. It is assumed that they were brothers, and that one of them was the karta. Imrat Singh died before the decree and his two sons became parties as his sons. Bhagwant Singh, being still alive, was also a party, but the minor son of Bhagwant Singh, namely Jagraj Singh, the present plaintiff, was not a party. There is no evidence that the mortgagee even knew of his existence. So far as I can understand the matter it is immaterial which of the two brothers was the karta at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Pachua Pasi Vs. Raj Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.721a
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion the judgment of the Munsif was correct that the plaintiff had no longer any interest in the land in suit and was not entitled to sue. The facts have been clearly stated in the judgment of the Munsif. The plaintiff was formerly a tenant of the zemindar and in 1917 the zemindar instituted a suit for his ejectment. The suit was compromised and the plaintiff was granted a right of occupancy in the land on his promise to pay enhanced rent. This compromise, however, was not put into effect and the zemindar took possession. The plaintiff came to Court on the allegation that in December, 1923, he was ejected by the defendant a stranger, and, therefore, obtained his cause of action. This allegation has been held by both the subordinate Courts to be false. The plaintiff has not been in possession ever since 1917 when the zemindar took possession. The trial Court rightly pointed out that when the zemindar took possession the plaintiff ought to have sued under Section 79 ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All84; 108Ind.Cas.122
Boys, J.1. The learned Judge has based his refusal, according to the certified copy on the file before me, on cases reported in 103 I. C, p. 407 and Queen, Empress v. Pophi [189l] 13 All. 171. There is no such, volume as No. 103 I. C, and I am unable to trace the reference. The other case; reported in Queen Empress v. Pophi [189l] 13 All. 171 to some extent justifies the learned Judge in his refusal to arrange for the appellant to be produced in his Court.2. Owing to my having had to deal with this and connected cases on previous occasions I was aware that this, at any rate, is a case in which the convict should be allowed an opportunity of arguing his case, if he so desired. I, therefore, as time was short, by a letter from this Court dated 25th November 1927, directed the learned Judge, in conjunction with the District Magistrate, to make arrangements for the production of the accused.3. I am not, and I never have been, personally wholly in accord with the decision reported in Queen ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkhan Singh Vs. Gulab Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1929All32; 113Ind.Cas.732
Dalal, J.1. I have some difficulty in coming to a decision in this case without further evidence. The plaintiff sued for the recovery of profits for the year 1237 Fasli. It is certain that the basis of his title was unsound and he had really no title to the property. He purchased the property from one Raghubir Singh who was prior to the institution of the suit declared not to be the owner of the property, and the sale in favour of the plaintiffs, was specifically declared to be null and void by a civil Court, The difficulty, however, is that at some time or other the plaintiff Malkhan Singh's name was recorded in the revenue records. I have no information whether such a record existed on the date of the institution of the present suit on 29th July 1923. or not. If the plaintiff's name did exist in the record he was entitled to sue under the presumption enjoined by Section 201(3), Tenancy Act. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Durga Prasad v. Kuer Hazari Singh [1911] 33 ...
Tag this Judgment!ishur Das Vs. Chironji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All169; 118Ind.Cas.370
ORDERKendall, J.1. In this suit it is clear that the plaintiff-appellant has not been fairly treated. In 1904 he purchased what were apparently full proprietary rights in the land in suit, which was called in the sale-deed a grove. There is no evidence to show that he has lost his rights either by voluntary transfer or by operation of law, or, in any other way. He was dispossessed by the defendant respondent in 1922, and when he tried to assert his rights in Court, the revenue Courts would not help him because they said he was not an occupancy tenant, and in the present proceedings the civil Courts have refused to come to his aid because they have held that he is suing as an occupancy tenant and is barred by Section 73, Tenancy Act.2. It is necessary for the sake of clearness to re-state the facts somewhat fully. In 1904, the appellant bought the land in suit from the zamindar Mr. Gardner. The sale-deed is on the file. The land is described as a grove, being part of the zamindari of Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Tungal Vs. Chandra Bhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All214; 108Ind.Cas.703
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent. The point in issue was the amount of rent payable. There was another defence also that there were two tenants, Tungal and Partap, and the suit cannot lie against Tungal alone. The defendant pleaded that the rent was only Rs. 57-8-0 and not Rs. 99 as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs produced a copy of a registered kabuliyat executed by Tungal. The original was not produced but, as the lower appellate Court accepted the copy. I shall not enquire whether the copy ought legally to have been accepted or not. The matter rested with the lower appellate Court. That Court held that the kabuliyat was enforceable. It, however, did not consider the circumstance that the kabuliyat was executed by only one out of two tenants. The suit appears to be dishonest in so far that Partap has purposely been left out as he had not executed any kabuliyat. I do not think that when there are two joint tenants of a holding the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sheo DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All622; 108Ind.Cas.159
Boys, J.1. This is a reference by Mr. Raja Ram, Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, of a case in which a jury have found nine men not guilty of the dacoity which they were alleged by the prosecution to have committed. Section 307, Criminal P.C., gives the learned Judge power to refer a case like this, but directs him, when referring it, to record the grounds of his opinion that it is necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case. We have read the referring order, and it gives us no information at all beyond that there are two witnesses, Banjari and Tulsi, for the prosecution who state something unspecified, and the evidence of a Sub-Inspector, Amanul Haq, who speaks to the absconding of one of the accused. The rest of the referring order is confined to brief statements that there is no evidence to support this or the other allegation made by the accused. The learned Judge's referring order should certainly have been in the nature of a judgment which would give this Court a proper summar...
Tag this Judgment!Karim Khan and anr. Vs. Noor Muhammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All329
Dalal, J.1. The Court has received considerable help in understanding the law on the subject from arguments of Mr. Shankar Saran and Dr. Waliullah. The entire case law has been placed before me and the facts of the case carefully explained. I have come to the conclusion that the lower appellate Court has gone wrong and that the judgment of the Munsif is sound. The question at issue is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act. The facts are given in great detail in the plaint. First of all there was an imperfect partition of a mahal in 1904 under which eight lots were prepared and lot 1 was allotted to the plaintiff of the present suit and to defendants 5 and 18. Subsequently, in 1922, the predecessors-in-title of defendants 2, 3, 4, 5 and 18 applied for another partition. It must be remembered that the partition of 1904 was imperfect so all the co-sharers had to be made parties when a re-allotment of the parties was proposed. It is a mist...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »