Allahabad Court February 1946 Judgments
indrasan and anr. Vs. Dalsingar Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All483
ORDERMalik, J.1. This case has been very carefully argued by Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate, for the opposite party. The facts are that on 5th April 1924, the judgment-debtor had mortgaged a grove No. 616, having forty mango trees planted on it, to the plaintiff. The description of the property mortgaged is as follows : 'Ek qita bagh amba jisme chalis darakhtan amba hain maucua arazi number 616.' (and then the name of the village and other details are given). The mortgagee filed a suit for sale in the year 1935 and obtained a decree. In the decree the description of the property as given in the mortgage deed as reproduced. The decretal amount was not paid by the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by sale of the grove. The judgment-debtor filed an objection on 28th May 1942, that he was an agriculturist and that according to the provisions of Section 22, U.P. Debt Redemption Act the decree could not be executed by sale of the trees. Section 22, U.P. D...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Rege, Solicitor Through Gopal Lal Mukhtaram Vs. Kazi Muhammad Hai ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All379
Allsop, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in order to recover possession over plots of agricultural land. The defendants pleaded that they were tenants, having obtained a lease from the lambardar who was a person other than the plaintiff. The learned Munsif in whose Court' the suit was instituted sent an issue to the revenue Court upon the question whether the defendants were properly tenants of the land. The revenue Court found that they were tenants. The Munsif thereupon dismissed the suit upon two grounds, namely, (1) that the defendants were tenants and (2) that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the lower appellate Court held that the defendants were not tenants but that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court, therefore, directed that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. Against thi...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. Surajpal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All486
ORDERBraund, J.1. I do not propose to refer this question in revision to a Pull Bench, although it is undoubtedly one of some interest. But it arises in revision and I think it would be better if I dealt with it myself to the best of my ability. The point is a very short one. A suit was brought by a plaintiff against a defendant under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff alleged that he had been in possession of certain plots of land within six months and had been dispossessed of them by the defendant. On these simple allegations, and no more, he claimed possession. The answer given by the defendant, so far as it is material to this revision, was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the case at all. The ground on which this was asserted was that the suit was taken out of the jurisdiction of the civil Court by Section 242, U.P. Tenancy Act. That section runs in this way:Subject to the provisions of Section 286 all suits and applications of the nature specified in Sch...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Dr. Pragnarain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All355
Braund, J.1. This is a Pull Bench which has been constituted to deal with what might have turned out to be a difficult point arising under Section 7(xi)(cc), Court-fees Act. There was a suit on foot in which the plaintiff was a landlord and the defendant was the tenant. That suit was started in 1942. In 1943 it was disposed of at the trial by a decree which gave possession to the plaintiff on payment of a sum of RS. 7000 to the defendant. How that came about it is not necessary for us to explain. In August 1943, the plaintiff appealed and the principal point which he took in his appeal was that he ought to have a decree for possession free from any condition of paying Rs. 7000. In substance, therefore, if his appeal had been successful, he would have escaped payment of that sum of Rs. 7000. On this appeal the plaintiff-appellant paid a certain court-fee, which, however, was not calculated ad valorem on that sum of Rs. 7000. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, when he heard of this, immediat...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Nawab Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All484
Bennett, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore arising out of the suspension of a gun licence held by one Hakim S. Nawab Ali. The licence was suspended by the. City Magistrate of Cawnpore and thereafter Hakim S. Nawab Ali was prosecuted and convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, because a number of cartridges were found in his possession. He had handed over his gun and licence when the latter was suspended. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the conviction be quashed.2. The question raised in the reference is whether the City Magistrate had power to suspend the licence. Section 18(a), Arms Act provides that a licence may be cancelled or suspended by the officer by whom it was granted, Or by any authority to which he may be subordinate, or by any Magistrate of a district, or Commissioner of Police in a Presidency town, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence may be, when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, such officer, au...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal Vs. Raj Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All466
Pathak, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court under Clause 10, Letters Patent. The facts are very short and may be stated as follows : On 11th September 1929, the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this appeal, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant, who is the respondent. On an application made by the plaintiff under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, a simple money decrees tinder Section 14 of that Act, was passed on 15th November 1987, in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff made an application to the Collector under Section 85 of that Act, praying for delivery of possession over the mortgaged property and possession was delivered to the plaintiff on 14th June 1939. Thereupon the plaintiff raised the action out of which this appeal has arisen for rendition of accounts and for recovery of mesne profits for the period beginning from 15th November 1987, the date on which the decree under Section 14, U.P. Encumber...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All333
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. The question of law that arises in the present reference by the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur relates to the extent of the liability of a surety under what may be styled as the security sections in chap. 8, Criminal P.C. These sections are five in number. Section 106 makes provision for security for keeping the peace being demanded from an accused person on his conviction and Section 107 provides about a person being called upon to show cause why he should not be ordered to furnish security for keeping the peace in cases outside the scope of Section 106. Sections 108, 109 and 110 specify the circumstances in which a person may be called upon to show cause why he should not be ordered to furnish 'security for good behaviour.' Sections 112 to 119 of the Code enact the procedure that has to be followed in cases falling within the purview of Sections 107 to No. While it is a feature common to all the five sections that the person proceeded against is either ordered or is c...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim BahauddIn Vs. Govind Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All117
Binnett, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from a decree of the Civil Judge of Jhansi declaring that an ex parte decree obtained by him against the plaintiff Govind Singh, then a minor, is void, and reviving the suit No. 22 of 1935, in which the decree was passed.2. There were four defendants in the suit brought to obtain this declaration. The first is the present appellant, Hakim Bahauddin, a money-lender, the other three are members of Govind Singh's family, one of them, defendant 3, Dillipat Singh, being his father, defendant &, Aman Singh, being the husband of his aunt; and defendant 2, Hanumant Singh, being the son of Aman Singh. The relationship appears more clearly from the following pedigree: Hira Singh _______________|__________________ | | | Mangal Singh Mt. subhajao = Mt. Raj Kuer = | Dilipat Singh Anan singh Jang Bahadur Singh | | (died 1919) Gobind Singh Hanumant Singh3. In the previous suit of 1935 Aman Singh was appointed guardian of the minor Govind Singh. The letter b...
Tag this Judgment!Pokhpal Singh and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All438
Yorke, J.1. This is a defendants' first appeal. The present suit is suit by an auction, purchaser, to whom possession of the property purchased by him has been refused by the execution Court, to recover possession of that property from certain transferees of the judgment-debtors who were not parties to the proceedings in execution of a decree. One Bhup Singh son of Gulab Singh was the owner of one biswa share in village Khushkari as his separate property. Bhup Singh had two brothers, Pokhpal Singh, defendant 1, and Nek Ram Singh, defendant 2, of the present suit. Defendant 3, Faujdar Singh, is the son of defendant 1 and defendant 4, Nawab Singh, is the son of defendant 2. On the death of Bhup Singh, he was succeeded by his widow Mt. Jawatri. On the death of Mt. Jawatri in the year 1927 Pokhpal Singh and Nek Ram Singh as the nearest reversioners were entitled to be entered in the khewat as owners of the one biswa share, half and half. For some reason which does not appear on the record ...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Dube and ors. Vs. Bahadur Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946All514
Pathak, J.1. The sole point raised by this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the suit giving rise to this appeal is barred by Section 283(k), Land Revenue Act, [III (3) of 1901]. We need give an outline of only such facts as may place the point at issue in its setting. On 15-7-1876, Jhagru Rai, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff-respondent, executed a mortgage with possession in favour of Nand Gopal Dube, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants, by which a certain share in village Sikanderpur was mortgaged for a term of 11 years. Sometime prior to 1908, the mortgage entry disappeared from the revenue papers and the mortgaged property was treated as property held in full proprietary interest. Partition proceedings were held in the revenue Court between 1903 and 1908 as a result of which the mortgaged property was assigned to the lot of the mortgagee and was described as property held in full proprietary interest. In 1932, the present suit was brought by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »