Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All179
Bajpai, J.1. An important question of law is raised in this revision, but before we discuss the same it might be of some advantage if the facts are stated in some detail. On 30th June 1923, Misra Rangnath, the applicant before us, applied to be appointed a guardian of Misra Murari Lal, the opposite party. The certificate was granted on 1st August 1923. The minor was a, resident of Muttra, and he had some property of his own and further he was a trustee of an endowment along with certain other persons, but in the application for guardianship only the private property of the minor was disclosed and no mention was made of the property of which the minor happened to be a trustee. On 7th August 1930 the minor attained majority and on 7th February 1931 he applied that the guardian be directed to render accounts. Mr. Allen, the then District Judge, was of the opinion that either the guardian should file an account or the minor may file a suit. This opinion was expressed on 14th April 1931, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 161Ind.Cas.493
1. An important question of law is raised in this revision, but before we discuss the same it might be of some advantage if the facts are stated in some detail. On June 30, 1923, Misra Rangnath, the applicant before us, applied to be appointed a guardian of Misra Murari Lal, the opposite party. The certificate was granted On August 1, 1923. The minor was a resident of Muttra, and he had some property of his own and further he was a trustee of an endowment along with certain other persons but in the application for guardianship only the private property of the minor was disclosed and no mention was made of the property of which the minor happened to be a trustee. On August 7, 1930, the minor attained majority and on February 7, 1931, he applied that the guardian be directed to render accounts. Mr. Allen, the then District Judge, was of the opinion that either the guardian should file an account or the minor may file a suit, This opinion was expressed on April 14, 1931, and on May 16, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All184
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by three persons, but learned Counsel stated to us that he addressed us only in regard to appellant 1 who was the lam-bardar. The appellant claims that as lambardar he brought a suit against Mt. Ram Piari, the appellant, for arrears of revenue which he had paid on her behalf and obtained a decree under Section 221, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. He put her share up to auction and on 25th May 1933 he purchased l/10th share in the property in suit and obtained possession. The opposite party is a decree-holder who obtained a simple mortgage decree on 27th November 1931 against the shares of Chandan Singh and his wife Mt. Ram Piari, and a final decree on 5th November 1932, and on 21st January 1933 he applied for execution of his final decree and the decree was sent to the Collector for sale of the property. The appellant before us made an objection to the effect that owing to his having purchased the 1/10th share on account of a decree for arrears of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All186
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The facts which have given rise to the litigation between the parties can be stated as follows: Lala Bitthal Das owned extensive properties including village Lalpur in Muttra District. On 23rd October 1914, he executed a will, under which he dedicated 20 Biswa-Zamindari in village Lalpur to an idol known as 'Sri Thakur Bare Madan Mohan Lalji Maharaj' situate in Bengali Ghat, Muttra. The plaintiffs in the case are Sri Thakur Bare Madan Mohan Lalji Maharaj and its Mutwalli and Manager Goswami Sri Bitthal Nath. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that an absolute gift of the village mentioned above was made in favour of the idol, plaintiff 1, by Lala Bitthal Das and that according to the terms of the will, plaintiff 2, the Mutwalli of plaintiff 1, was entitled to remain in possession of the endowed property. The plaintiffs' complaint was that after the death of Lala Bitthal Das, the defendants in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 161Ind.Cas.446
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by three persons, but learned Counsel stated to us that he addressed us only in regard to appellant No. 1 who was the lambardar. The appellant claims that as lambardar he brought a suit against Musammat Ram Piari, the appellant, for arrears of revenue which he had paid on her behalf and obtained a decree under Section 221, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926. He put her share up to auction and on May 25, 1933, he purchased one-tenth share in the property in suit and obtained possession. The opposite party is a decree-holder who obtained a simple mortgage decree on November 27, 1931, against the shares of Chandan Singh and his wife Musammat Ram Piari, and a final decree on November 5, 1932, and on January 21, 1933, he applied for execution of his final decree and the decree was sent to the Collector for sale of the property. The appellant before us made an objection to the effect that owing to his having purchased the one-tenth share on account of a decree for ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All373
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Chhadammi Lal, son of Sarju Prasad, caste Brahman, resident of Khajuha, police station Bindki, district Fatehpur, who was charged under Sections 395, 397 and 398. Two dacoities were committed, one at Maika-ka-purwar in the house of Maika Kewat on 28th December 1932 and the other in Mauza Ranupur in the house of Hari Lal on 30th December 1932. In connection with these dacoities, Chhadammi Lal, respondent, and Gulab were prosecuted. Both were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The Government have appealed against the acquittal of Chhadammi Lal alone.2. No trace of these dacoities was found till the time Chhadammi Lal made a confession on 14th June 1933. On 2nd April 1933 Chhadammi Lal, who was wanted in connection with several other dacoities, was arrested at Fardahan railway station in the Lakhimpur district by Ghoore Khan, constable. He was brought from Lakhimpur to Unao on 14th April 1933. Identifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All337; 163Ind.Cas.253
Harries, J.1. The appellants, Mathuri, Ram Bharose, Mt. Sunder, and Bishnu were, together with Sri Kishan, Suraj Prasad and Pyare Lal, tried by the learned Sessions Judge of the Farrukhabad district upon a number of charges. Mathuri and Ram Bharose were each charged with offences under Sections 302 and 457, I.P.C. Sri Kishen was charged with an offence under Section 460, I.P.C., whilst Mt. Sunder, Bishnu, Suraj Prasad and Pyare Lal were each charged with an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. All the accused were tried together upon these charges and eventually Sri Kishen, Suraj Prasad and Pyare Lal were found not guilty of the respective charges brought against them and acquitted. Mathuri and Ram Bharose were found not guilty of murder under Section 302, I.P.C., and were acquitted upon that charge, but they were convicted under Section 460, I.P.C., though they were not specifically charged with an offence under that section, the charges against them being under Sections 302 and 457, I. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All205
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of a suit for possession over the properties specified in the plaint. The facts of the case can briefly be stated as follows:Babu Ballabh Das had four sons, Gopal Das, Jhabbu Lal, Gobind Ram and Sohan Lal. Gobind Barn's wife was one Mt. Jamna Dei. He had two sons, Durga Pershad and Bhagwan Das. Babu Ballabh Das and his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family. Ballabh Das died in 1906. It is the case of both parties that shortly before his death a partition of the family estate had taken place, but no deed had been executed in the life-time of Babu Ballabh Das. It is necessary to state here that Babu Gobind Ram, his son, had died in the life-time of Ballabh Das and so had Bhagwan Das, one of the two sons of Gobind Ram. Bhagwan Das left one widow, Mt. Bhagwati. When the partition was made Durga Pershad, the minor son of Gobind Earn, represented this branch.2. Shortly after the death of Babu Ballabh Das, three deeds of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All88; 160Ind.Cas.1035
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, recommending that the conviction of Ram Narain Saraswat under Section 155, Municipalities Act, and a sentence of fine ,of Rs. 75 passed by the Joint Magistrate,. Allahabad, be set aside. The accused was tried summarily for introducing within the limits of the Allahabad Municipality dutiable articles without payment of the octroi duty. Ram Narain. Saraswat is the proprietor of a certain concern of which one U. N. Saraswat is the manager. A certain consignment, addressed to Ram Narain, was received by rail. Delivery was taken on behalf of the consignee by U. N. Saraswat. At the E.I.R. Station octroi barrier he-was directed to take the consignment to the head octroi office and pay a duty of Rs. 16. Under certain rules the barrier staff of the Municipality cannot collect octroi duty if it exceeds a certain amount. The sum of Rule 16 payable by R N. Saraswat the consignee, was in excess of such a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1936All150
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate, first class, of that district, under Sections 133/137, Criminal P.C., be set aside. It appears that the District Board complained that Gangadhar had encroached upon a certain public way and thus obstructed the use of that way by the public. A report was called for from the Qanungo, who stated that there had been no encroachment. The Magistrate thereupon proceeded to hold an enquiry purporting to be one under Section 133, Criminal P.C. The case dragged on from 22nd August 1934 to 13th June 1935, when it was finally decided against Gangadhar, who was directed to remove the construction made by him on the land alleged to be part of the public way. Gangadhar moved the Sessions Judge in revision and contended that the procedure laid down by Section 139-A (2), Criminal P.C., had not been followed. This contention was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, wh...
Tag this Judgment!