Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All657
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the case are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court against whose judgment this appeal is.2. It appears that there was once a single proprietor Mohammad Husain of khewat No. 29 which consisted of an area of 14 bighas and 10 biswas. Mohammad Husain held 12 bighas and 1 biswa, as his sir land. In course of time Mohammad Husain's property devolved on his heirs and some of the heirs transferred their shares. The appellant before us, Syed Abu Jafar, is one of the heirs of Mohammad Husain while the respondent Syed Mohammad Kazim is the purchaser of the shares of the remaining co-sharers. Some time ago there were three co-owners in khewat No. 29, viz. Abu Jafar, owning 2/16th, Mt. Muti Fatma owning 1/16th and Mohammad Kazim owning 13/16th share of the khewat.3. When Mohammad Kazim purchased the shares of the co-sharers owning 13/16th share, the vendors relinquished their right as exproprietary tenants in favour of Mohammad Kazim. Mohammad Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All762
Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and mesne profits. Three kinds of property were embraced in the claim; (a) zamindari share to the extent of 3 pies 6 chhataks each in mauzas Reoli and Bhita; (b) mortgagee rights in 2 pies 2 chhataks of Reoli and (c) certain cultivatory holdings set out at the foot of the plaint. The last-named item, by an oversight, has been omitted in the translation of the plaint as contained in the paper book.2. Mt. Ram Dei Misrain executed a zar-i-peshgi lease of these properties in favour of Ram Lochan Misra, defendant 7, on 25th June 1919, for five years. Under the terms of this instrument, she reserved to herself the right to cancel the lease by giving a month's notice to the lessee. Surju Misra defendant 1, pre-empted the lease, on 28th June 1920. Mt. Ram Dei gave a notice to Ram Lochan Misra, the original lessee, and Surju Misra, the pre-emptor, intimating thereby that she had put an end to the lease and asking for po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All129; 129Ind.Cas.718
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by two defendants against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court granting the plaintiff zamindar an injunction to prevent the defendants from building on a certain plot of land in the village site and to remove any buildings made by them. The facts as found by the lower appellate Court are that there was formerly on the site of the building in question a chhappar, that is a thatched structure, and that previously to that the site contained an open space. The lower appellate Court considered that the rule governing this suit was as follows:The site of house B in this case forms part of an ahata which must be considered to be a part of the abadi. The zamindar has no reason to complain if a house is built by the occupiers of the ahata on a portion of it.2. In other words the lower appellate Court considers that if land in an abadi adjoins a house and is considered to be the ahata or yard of that house then the tenant residing in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All600
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the properties specified in the plaint and that the defendants have no proprietary right in them. The properties in dispute consist of certain houses occupied by raiyats on lands said to be appertaining to a dargah; open ground as well as certain lands comprised in khewat No. 48 and measuring about 10 bighas and 13 biswas. The plaintiffs' case as put forward in the plaint was that these properties had been granted to their ancestor and had devolved upon them exclusively but the defendants who had no title to these properties were actually offering obstruction to he collection of rents by the plaintiffs and alleging themselves to be co-owners 'he said properties and were trying to make collections of rant as well as of offerings to the shrine. The plaintiffs did not ask for any specific consequential relief by way of ejectment or injunction, but added t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All644
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by Talib Ali Shah defendant 20, arising out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 12th May 1904, executed by the original owner of this property, Mahbub Ali Shah, in favour of the plaintiff Piarey Lal and his co-mortgagee Nanak Chand whose rights he has since acquired under a subsequent purchase. When the suit was originally instituted Talib Ali Shah was described as a major and an ex parte decree was obtained against him and the other defendants. When however the decree was put in execution he objected that he had all along been a minor and had not been properly represented. The execution Court acceded to this contention and allowed the objection. The plaintiff Piarey Lal than applied to the original Court under Section 151, Civil P.C., claiming that the suit should be restored and proceeded with after the appointment of a guardian ad litem of Talib Ali Shah. The Court acceded to this request and the suit was tried on the merits and has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All619
Mukerji, J.1. Three points have been argued in this appeal, namely, the respondent's suit was barred as res judicata, that it was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 Civil P.C., and that on the merits the plaintiff was not entitled to possession as that amounted to a dispossession of a co-sharer.2. It appears that the plaintiff brought a suit, No. 219 of 1925, for possession of a certain plot No. 419 and for injunction with respect to two plots, namely, 415 and 421, against the present appellant who was the defendant in the case. The parties came to terms. The plaintiff's suit for possession of plot 419 was dismissed. His claim for injunction with respect to plot 415 was decreed. Nothing was said about plot 421. The plaintiff brought the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, to recover possession of plot 421. It has been found that at the date of the institution of suit No. 219 of 1925 the plaintiff was out of possession. The question is whether the present suit is barred on any o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All620
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares reversing that of a Munsif of that district in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that an agreement dated 21st May 1925 executed by him in favour of the defendant is ineffectual. In substance the suit was one for the cancellation of the aforesaid document.2. The plaintiff-respondent owned a house No. 12/8 situate in the city of Benares. By a deed dated 7th May 1924 he dedicated it to Sri Ram Chandraji and constituted himself a shebait for life. The deed appointed five persons including one Moti Lal as manager. Subsequently on 21st May 1925 he executed the agreement which is now sought to be cancelled by which he appointed the defendant-appellant as a shebait to bold office after him and to be in possession of the dedicated property generation after generation.3. Two suits were instituted, one by Moti Lal and another by the plaintiff, the present responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All634
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendant 1, Upendranath Basu, against a decree for sale on a simple mortgage passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares. The original mortgage deed was a simple mortgage for Rs. 19,000 dated 17th January 1905 executed by two persons, Sarat Chander Bhattacharya, defendant 5 and Bishnu Shankar, the father of defendants 6 to 9, in favour of the plaintiff Kalicharan Mitra and his brother Kali Das Mitra whose estate is now represented by his widow, defendant 12, Srimati Bidut Kiran Dasi. The suit was brought by Kalicharan Mitra alone making defendant 12, his brother's widow, a party, and a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 7,421-10-6 and in favour of defendant 12 to the extent of Rs. 2,47514-10. We may say at once that it would have been a better procedure if the learned Subordinate Judge had acceded to the prayer in the written statement of defendant 12 and joined her as a plaintiff instead of keeping her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All836
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal of Pandit Krishna Gopal Sharma arising out of his conviction under Section 124-A, I.P. C, and a sentence thereunder of one year's simple imprisonment. The article appeared in a paper called the 'Krantikari' published at Jhansi and is dated 8th April 1929. The article is in two portions: the first headed 'Swaraj and Death,' and the second headed 'Sham Fight.' It is admitted on behalf of the Crown that the whole article from beginning to end had already previously appeared in two other publications: one in Bombay and one in Calcutta. So far as the information before the Court goes no steps were taken in either Bombay or Calcutta to prosecute in regard to either of those publications. That is however of course no reason for holding that the article is not itself actually of a nature to bring upon persons responsible for it the consequences of Section 124-A, I.P.C.2. No question has been argued before me on behalf of the appellant as to his responsibility or ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All160
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for recovery of Rs. 1,671-8-6 alleged to be due under an acknowledgment, dated 8th August 1924, executed by the two defendants: Mt. Mumtazi Begam defendant 1, and her husband Hamid Khan defendant 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. The acknowledgment is in the following terms:That the second executant (Hamid Khan) has borrowed Rs. 1,900 from Hafiz Allah Bakhsh, son of Hafiz Nabi Baksh caste Sheikh now resident of Nai Mandi, Agra City and utilized in his business, and the said Hafiz has been persistently demanding his dues and at present we cannot manage to pay off his debt we agree to execute an agreement for mortgage by conditional sale within four months of this.2. It has been found, and the finding has not been contested before us, that the liability acknowledged in the writing quoted above represented certain debts due from defendant 2 to the plaintiff which h...
Tag this Judgment!