Allahabad Court February 1928 Judgments
Koka Ram Vs. Salig and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All536; 114Ind.Cas.900
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal by a plaintiff arises out of a suit brought by him as sub-tenant of a certain holding against the defendants-respondents as his own sub-tenants is respect of part of the holding. The suit is based upon a kabuliyat, dated 18th July 1823, which expresses the acceptance by the defendants of certain land, for one year on a rental of Rs. 139-2-0. The year in question was 1331 Fasli equivalent to July 1923 24 The claim concerns not only that year but the kharif portion of the following year 1332 Fasli. There are thus two causes of action. One is based on the contractual agreement created by the kabuliyat and one is based upon the liability of a tenant holding over to pay rent. Such joinder of causes of action is permitted by Order 2, Rule 3, Civil P.C., and that rule is not excluded by Section 192, U.P. Tenancy Act 2, 1901 from applying to suits under the Tenancy Act.2. The suit was resisted in the trial Court on the ground that the defendants had paid a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran and anr. Vs. Abdul Ghaffar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All378; 114Ind.Cas.38
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must be allowed and the decision of the trial Court must be restored. There is nothing in law to prevent a person holding two independent mortgages over the same property from putting the subsequent mortgage into suit first and then bringing a second suit on the basis of the first mortgage held by him, provided that while bringing a suit on the basis of the second mortgage he proclaimed the existence of the first mortgage over the property mortgaged. If a mortgagee having two mortgages over the same property puts the later mortgage into suit and discloses the existence of the first mortgage and obtains a decree for sale on the basis of the second mortgage for sale of the property subject to the prior mortgage, and that decree is put into execution and the property is sold subject to the prior mortgage, the auction-purchaser purchases the property subject to the first mortgage, and it is not open to him to resist a suit for sale on the basis of the first mo...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sheokali Vs. Gauri Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.911
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Musammat Sheokali sued a large number of zemindars, for a declaration that she was the tenant of a particular holding. The grounds of her claim were that her father was occupancy tenant, after whom her mother, his widow remained a tenant until 1328 Fasil when on her death the plaintiff took possession. It was further stated that the defendants had admitted her tenancy and allowed her to remain in possession. The trial Court of the Assistant Collector declared under Section 25 of the Tenancy Act of 1901 that the plaintiff was a non-occupancy tenant of the land in suit on behalf of the, defendant zemindar. She was not an heir under Section 22 of the Tenancy Act but some of the defendants favoured her and acknowledged her as tenant so the trial Court came to the conclusion that she was a tenant on behalf of the defendants. The defendant Gauri Rai who owns 13 annas out of a one rupee share in the zemindari of the village appealed to the Commissioner. In the writte...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All333
Dalal, J.1. When criminal Courts have large powers to punish adequately a complainant who brings a false complaint to it is to be regretted that such a Court should get rid of a complainant whom he believes to be false by methods not warranted by law. In the present case the complainant Ram Das had given considerable trouble to a Court presided over by an Honorary Magistrate who, however, took no steps to punish him but discharged the persons accused by him of certain offences. Subsequently Ram Das complained in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Meerut who dismissed his complaint not because he believed it to be false, but on the ground that the complaint was barred by reason of the previous discharge of the persons accused by him. The Joint Magistrate was most certainly wrong, as was observed by the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, admitting this wrong view of the Joint Magistrate, proceeded to dismiss the application for revision on the ground that he understood from th...
Tag this Judgment!Shubrati and anr. Vs. Shamsuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All337; 110Ind.Cas.413
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by a learned Judge of this Court inasmuch as, in his opinion, it involves an important question of law. It arises out of a suit for malicious prosecution. The defendant-respondent filed a complaint on 22nd February 1923, alleging that he was in possession of a certain house in which he had kept certain goods of his and that the present plaintiffs broke open the house and removed his goods. The complaint was under Section 448, I.P.C., i.e., house trespass. The Magistrate charged the plaintiffs under Section 379 also. The accused persons were convicted by the first Court under Section 448 and acquitted of the charge tinder Section 379; but on appeal they were acquitted of the charge under Section 448 also. The plaintiffs then brought the present suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant, in his written statement, pleaded that his complaint was true and that the allegation made by him was quite correct. ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Ali and ors. Vs. Yehia Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All402a; 114Ind.Cas.910
Dalal, J.1. The question of law arising in this second appeal is covered by authority. In Varaj Lal v. Someshar [1905] 29 Bom. 219 a Bench of two Judges of the Bombay High Court held that the provisions of Section 14 were not applicable where a suit was withdrawn by a plaintiff under Order 23, Rule 1, with permission to bring a... fresh suit. This was followed by a Bench of two Judges of the Madras High-Court-in-Arunachallam v. Lahshmana [1916] 39 Mad. 936. Both Courts relied upon the specific provisions of Rule 2, Order 23 that if any fresh suit is instituted with permission granted under Rule 1, the plaintiff shall be bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted. In the present case arrears of rent for Rabi 1325 Fasli and 1326 Fasli were sued for on 17th July 1922, i.e., more than three years after the accrual of the cause of action. The period of limitation was sought to be extended according to the provisions of Section 14, Lim. Act...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saran Das and anr. Vs. Chhote Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All668; 110Ind.Cas.365
Sulaiman and kendall, JJ.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the house in dispute is not saleable in execution of money decrees in favour of defendants 1 and 2 against Gobind Prasad, defendant 3. The plaintiff, Chhote Lal, has acquired this property from defendant 4, Narain Das, who has been impleaded as a pro forma defendant.2. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that this house originally belonged to one Baldeo Prasad deceased, who died some 26 or 27 years ago, and on his death his widow Mt. Shitabo took possession of it along with other properties as Hindu widow with limited rights. It is further alleged that Gobind Prasad was the brother of Mt. Shitabo, who wrongfully took possession of this house after her death but later on, viz., on 2nd January 1924, he relinquished it in favour of the plaintiff who entered into possession. The contesting defendants in their written statements, when referring to the allegations contained in the plaint,...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kurwa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All357; 113Ind.Cas.282
Boys, J.1. This case while headed as a criminal appeal has been heard by us on the revisional side, since it has already been ruled by this Court that an application by the Local Government against an order of a Sessions Judge setting aside an order that an accused person should furnish security is an application which can only lie on the revisional side and no appeal can be filed at all. We have, therefore, heard it as a revision.2. This Court has time and again pointed out to the police and to Magistrates the great desirability of proceeding in these cases strictly in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the advice repeatedly given is as regularly ignored; and so it has been in this case. The proceedings commenced with what purports to be an order under Section 112, Criminal P.C., by which it is suggested that notice was given in accordance with law to the accused of what charges he had to meet. The notice describes him as an habitual thief and 'mischief-doer' and as h...
Tag this Judgment!Sibt Ahmad and anr. Vs. Amina Khatoon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All18; 113Ind.Cas.434
Lindsay, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by a Muhammadan lady, Bibi Amina Khatun, in order to obtain a declaration that a ceremony of nikah which is said to have taken place on 22nd September 1917, between her and defendant 1, Sibt Ahmad, was not lawful and binding and that the relation of husband and wife did not exist between defendant 1 and herself. Defendant 1, Sibt Ahmad, was impleaded as a minor under the guardianship of his grandfather, Wazir Ahmad.2. During the hearing of the appeal some question was raised as to the age of this defendant who is the appellant before us. It was suggested that since the decision of the case in the Court below Sibt Ahmad had become of full age. We thought it proper in these circumstances to send for Sibt Ahmad and to examine him upon oath. He was not examined in the Court below. Sibt Ahmad has not appeared before us and has made a statement which we accept, namely, that he was born in the month of May 1910. This infor...
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho and ors. Vs. Shambhu Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All196; 114Ind.Cas.908
Dalal, J.1. This appeal is somewhat difficult. The facts which are rather complicated may be stated as below, in accordance with the findings of the lower appellate Court. The occupancy holding in suit belonged to one Ram Narain prior to 1910. A short time before his death he executed a deed of gift in favour of his daughter Mt. Putia and another daughter's son Shambhu Nath. Shambhu Nath is plaintiff in this suit. Ram Narain left him surviving a widow Mt. Parbati and a separated brother Sheo Narain. After his death entries in the record were made according to the deed of gift but Sheo Narain applied to the revenue authorities to have the name of Mt. Parbati entered during her life so that he may succeed his brother on her death. This matter was compromised on 20th December 1910. According to the compromise, to which Sheo Narain, Shambhu and Mt. Putia were parties the holding was given to Mt. Putia and Shambhu Nath reserving out of 34 bighas a small portion of 1 bigha 14 biswas for the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »