Allahabad Court January 1945 Judgments
Madar and anr. Vs. Tirath Raj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All304
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent which was dismissed by an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. The original defendants had pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the zamindars and that they had always paid the rent to the real zamindar Deo Narain. Deo Narain was impleaded under the provisions of Section 247, United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, and he raised the plea that he was the zamindar either in his own right or by adverse possession. The learned Assistant Collector framed an issue and remitted it to the civil Court which decided that Deo Narain had been receiving the rent and had acquired a title to the property by adverse possession. When the finding on the issue was returned to the Assistant Collector, he dismissed the suit saying that the civil Court had found that Deo Narain had acquired a title by adverse possession and that the other defendants had paid the rent to him in good faith. There was an appeal to the Court of the District...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All340
Braund, J.1. This is an appeal by three men named Basdeo, Rupi and Sirya respectively, who have been charged, convicted and sentenced under Sections 147 and 323, coupled with Section 149, Penal Code. At the outset of the appeal, a preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the appellants. It is this. The two charges upon which the appellants have been tried were under Sections 323 and 147, Penal Code, respectively. A reference to Schedule 2, Criminal P.C. shows that each of these offences is what is known as a 'warrant' case and is triable by 'any Magistrate.' In the present case the proceedings in their earlier stages came before the Special Magistrate of the first class of Muttra and he, on 14th March 1944, committed the present appellants to stand their trial before the Sessions Court of Muttra. At that stage it is necessary to say that the charges against these appellants were the outcome of one of those unfortunate affairs which so frequently happen and which give rise to cross...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behari Kurmi Vs. Mahadeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All204
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The property which was alleged to have been mortgaged was an occupancy holding. The mortgagor executed two deeds of so-called usufructuary mortgage on 18th July 1922 and a further deed of charge on 23rd June 1930. There can be no doubt after the decision in Ghassu v. Babu Ram : AIR1944All25 that the application could lie. The main question which remains was whether the applicant was bound to pay off the amount secured by the deed of 23rd June 1930 before he could recover possession of the property. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has held that he was not bound to pay off this sum. The learned Judge relied upon the case in Lallu Singh v. Ram Nandan : AIR1930All136 . That case, however, is not strictly in point. It dealt with three alleged mortgages of an occupancy holding before the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901, became law. It was held by two of the learned Judges who decide...
Tag this Judgment!Ganda Singh and ors. Vs. Kundan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All205
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. When the suit was in. stituted, the plaintiff claimed a right to preempt on the ground that he was a cosharer in the same mahal with the vendee but was a nearer relation to the vendor, that is, was not removed by more than four degrees from the common ancestor of the vendor and himself. Before the decree could be passed, however, there was an imperfect partition of the mahal and the vendor and vendee were included in the same patti, that is, they became cosharers in the same subdivision of the mahal, whereas the plaintiff was a cosharer in another sub-division. The suit was consequently dismissed. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants urges that the imperfect partition could not affect the rights of the parties, but no sub-division of a mahal can be created otherwise than by imperfect partition. If there is a perfect partition, then the original mahal is broken into two or more mahals. The only distinction between a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Aisha Begam Vs. Mt. Kundan Jan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All367
Malik, J.1. This appeal has been connected in this Court with First Appeal No. 33 of 1940 Rafiqa Begam v. Aisha Begam See : AIR1945All363 in which we have delivered judgment to-day. Suit No. 20 of 1937 out of which the pre-sent second appeal has arisen was filed on 24th July 1937 for cancellation of a mortgage, dated 1st September 1932 for Rs. 3000 executed by the plaintiff in favour of her mother. Plaintiff further claimed a declaration that she was the owner of the entire 18 sihams as the heir to her sister Halimatun Nissa who had died in the year 1928, on the ground that Noor Uddin Ahmad was an illegitimate son of Kundan Jan, defendant 1, and was not the son of Naqi Uddin Ahmad, the father of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that as Mt. Kundan Jan had been re-converted and had become a Hindu she was also not entitled to inherit any share in the property left by her daughter Halimatun Nissa. The defendant's contention was that when Halimatun Nissa died the plaintiff, her sister,...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiqa Begam and anr. Vs. Aisha Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All363
Malik, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff has filed a cross-objection. There is a Second Appeal NO. 507 of 1940 connected with it which we shall dispose of by a separate judgment. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant l, Rafiqa Begam alias Kundan Jan, who is the widow of Mohammad Naqiuddin Ahmad Khan to whom she was married in the last decade of this nineteenth century the date of the marriage, however, is one of the matters in dispute between the parties. Naqiuddin Ahmad died on 17fch November 1924. The plaintiff is one of the children of this marriage. Plaintiff's case was that Kundan, Jan who was a Naik by caste was a prostitute before her marriage to her father Naqiuddin Ahmad. That at the time of her marriage she changed her religion and was known as Rafiqa Begam that after Naqiuddin Ahmad's death Mt. Rafiqa Begam alias Kundan Jan went back to her previous profession of a prostitute, was reconverted and began to live with her relations who are defendants 3 to 8....
Tag this Judgment!Nathoo and anr. Vs. Hori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All196
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption in which a decree was passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the pre-emptor. There was in that Court some question of the issue of notice under Section 14, Agra Pre-emption Act, 1922, but it was found as a fact that no notice under that section had been served and that point is not raised in the grounds of appeal. There was also a question whether the pre-emptor was precluded from asserting his right on the ground of estoppel. It was found that he was not so precluded and it is on that ground that the vendees have appealed. The point is based on the allegation that the person through whom the sale was being arranged, a man called Hira Lal, had given a notice to all the cosharers asking whether they wished to buy the property and that the plaintiff together with a number of other cosharers paid no attention to the notice one or the other. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's failure to pay a...
Tag this Judgment!Durgan Singh Alias Arjun Singh Vs. Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All218
Bennett, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was brought against him under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act, to eject him as a trespasser from a plot No. 174/2/1 of an area of 12 acres. This plot was allotted at a partition in 1940 to the respondent, Ram Sahai, and the appellant does not claim any title in the land. The land was treated as banjar in the partition, being so recorded in the revenue papers, but it appears that there are actually a number of trees upon it and it is in respect of these trees that the appellant claimed an interest. The respondent's suit was dismissed by the Munsif on the view that there were a very large number of trees on the plot and that, therefore, the plot is a grove and must have been such at the time of partition. The Civil Judge in first appeal considered the effect of Sections 118 and 119, Land Revenue Act, on which the Munsif had relied, but did not think that they helped the appellant. Section 118 provides that if in making a partition it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All230
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision by Maharaj Singh against the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 411, Penal Code, and upholding the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment passed on him by a learned Magistrate of the First Class. It appears that a burglary was committed at the house of one Vireshwarpal Singh at village Cadola on the night between 27th and 28th August 1943 and some valuable ornaments and cash to the extent of about Rs. 4000 were removed by the burglars from a locked safe inside a Kothri in the inner apartments of the house of Vireshwarpal Singh. Vireshwarpal Singh and his family lived in another house. The next morning at about 10 A. M. the burglary was discovered when Vireshwar. pal Singh went to the other house where the iron safe and other property was kept. On coming to know of the theft he immediately wrote out a first information report and sent it to the police station Hasain. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All303
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act, which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court upon the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to invoke the aid of that section. The plaintiff set up two mortgages dated 3rd June 1921 and 6th July 1922. The property mortgaged was land held by the mortgagor as an occupancy tenant. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that there could be no suit under Section 33 of the Act because there was no valid mortgage. It seems to me in the first place that Section 33 does not refer to mortgages as such but to loans and advances. Nobody has denied that money was advanced to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff does not choose to repudiate the transaction there seems to me no reason why the Courts should do so. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred me to the case in Ghassu v. Baburam : AIR1944All25 in which a Full Bench of this Court held t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »