Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad246
1. We are unable to uphold the decision of the District Judge. The plaintiffs are inamdars. They sue to eject the defendant, who and whose predecessors have been in possession for about fifty years. The plaintiffs have given no evidence of a right to eject the defendant which the Judge is inclined to accept. If the plaintiff's inam were in a zamindari they could not be in a batter position as regards the right to eject the defendant than the Zamindar who created the inam. If the inam were situated outside a zamindari and was granted by Government there would be no presumption in their favour that they were entitled to eject. The decision in Achayya v. Hanumantrayudu I.L.R. (1891) Mad. 269 has bean explained as based on the particular facts of that case in Cheskati Zamindar v. Ranasooru Dhora I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 318. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove a right to eject the defendant, we must reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the Munsif with costs here and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1942)1MLJ467
King, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dismissing an application filed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition was filed by a minor for whom his next friend asserted that he was the heir of the original party to the litigation who had an undoubted right to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His relationship to that original party was questioned by the respondent who put him to strict proof of his title.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that he has not sufficiently proved that he is the heir of the original party. It is difficult to understand how the learned Judge came to this conclusion. There is the definite evidence given on behalf of the petitioner establishing the fact that his father died before his uncle who was the party concerned and that his uncle had already lost his wife and had left no other heirs. No possible alternative heir to the Uncle was suggested by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.710
1. The order ascertained the amount of mesne profits, but did not award interest, and the lower appellate Court, in allowing it, has added to the order, Harmanoiee Narain Singh v. Ram Prasad Singh 6 Cri.L.J. 462 ; Girish Chunder Lahir v. Sasi Sakhareswar Roy 33 C. 29 has no application, as there mesne profits were not ascertained in the decree. We modify the District Judge's order by directing the exclusion of interest. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. There will be no costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 25Ind.Cas.1008a
ORDERSadasiva Aiyar, J.1. I see no reason to interfere with the convictions and I don't agree with the case of Sahib Singh v. Emperor 38 P.R. 1905 Cr. : 115 P.L.R. 1905 : 2 Cri.L.J. 694, which decides that because it is illegal to try two persons for two distinct offences committed by them, the Appellate Court has no power to convict one of two persons tried for a certain offence of another offence found done on the facts.2. As regards the sentence on the first accused who is a young man affected by the evil influence of his elder brother, I reduce it to the term of imprisonment already undergone by him. The case as regards the other accused is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1880)ILR2All800
Pearson, J.1. In the case of Girdharee Lall v. Kantoo Lall L.R.. 1 Ind. App. 321 : 14 B.L.R. 187 and Muddun Thakoor v. Kantoo Lall L.R. 1 Ind. App. 321 : 14 B.L.R. 187, decided by the Privy Council on the 12th May 1874, it was ruled that ancestral property which descends to a father under the Mitakshara law is not exempted from liability to-pay his debts because a son is born to him, that it would be a pious duty on the part of the son to pay his father's debts, unless they had been illegally contracted or for immoral purposes, and that, it being a son's pious duty to pay his father's debts, the ancestral property in which the son, as the son of his father, acquires an interest by birth, is liable to the father's debts. In the later case of Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh I.L.R. 5 Cal. 148, decided by the Privy Council on the 1st February 1879, reference is made to the above mentioned decision as an authority for the following proposition, viz., that when a joint ancestral proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)2UPLBEC1823
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. This petition is directed against an order of the State Government dated 8.7.1984 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) by means of which the Controlling Authority (respondent No. 3) has set aside the order dated 20.7.1977 under Section 15 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition, are that after the building plan applied by the petitioners was sanctioned, they constructed a house on forest land. Subsequently an application under Section 7-A of the Act was made by the Forest Department, inter alia, with the allegations that the plan had been got sanctioned by misrepresentation of facts. The Prescribed Authority after considering the matter came to the conclusion that none of the allegations made in the aforesaid application was true with the result he rejected the application vide its order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All202
1. This is a second appeal The plaintiffs were the purchasers of the equity of redemption in respect of certain usufructuary mortgage, and the right was pre-empted in 1918. Certain mortgagees had to pay a certain sum of money annually to the mortgagor under a mortgage prior to the purchase by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for recovery of this amount from the date of the purchase to the date of their dispossession by the pre-emptor. We are of opinion that the plaintiffs have no right to recover any sum by way of profits out of the property for the time between their purchase and the pre-emption. The lower appellate Court has not, expressed itself quite clearly but this is what it means when it says 'Pre-emption' after all is only a substitution of one vendee for another. The definition of the 'right of pre-emption' given in the Agra Preemption Act, 1922, conveys the meaning attached to such a right even prior to the passing of the Act. The definition says:Right ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All580; 118Ind.Cas.590
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of proceedings in execution of a simple money decree obtained by the decree-holder under the following circumstances:2. On 6th April 1920, the appellant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the decree-holder for Rs. 6,000. The appellant was a member of a joint Hindu family with his nephew, and the property hypothecated belonged to the joint family. Accordingly, the nephew instituted a suit for setting aside the mortgage in favour of the decree-holder. The suit succeeded, and a decree was passed in favour of the nephew on 6th December 1926 declaring the mortgage-deed to be invalid. The decree-holder then instituted a suit for simple money decree, which he obtained on 31st October 1927 for a sum of Rs. 12,621-14-0. In execution of that decree he attached the interests of the judgment-debtor in the mortgaged property. That the interests of a member of a joint Hindu family in the joint property can be attached by the creditor admits of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2006(2)JCR106(Jhr)]
ORDERN. Dhinakar, C.J.1. The petitioner, on being tried and found guilty for the offence under Sections 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months. The appellate Court confirmed the said conviction as well as the sentence. Hence, the present revision.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.2.1989, house of the petitioner was searched by Sri S.C. Jha, Officer-in-charge of Mandu police station of Hazaribagh district and on such search he found one rifle and five live cartridges. According to the prosecution, they were seized and seizure list was attested by the witness and a case being crime No. 69/89 was registered at Manclu Police Station. After investigation the final report was filed. The petitioner denied the allegations.3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, contends that since S.C. Jha. the officer who is alleged to have seized the material objects from the petitioner's house and the witnesses ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1998(II)OLR472
P.K. Misra, J.1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the cocpensation amount.2. It is not disputed that the claimant sustained injury on account of an accident caused by Scooter bearing registration number OSU 4838 belonging to present respondent No. 1. It is also undisputed that the said Scooter was being driven by present respondent No. 2. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to be paid by present respondent No. 2, who was driving the Scooter in question. The said respondent No. 2 has filed a Cross-Objection challenging the basis of liability on the ground of want of negligence on his part. The quantum of compensation is also challenged. He has further claimed that the compensation, if any, should be paid by respondent No. 1, as admittedly the Scooter was owned by respondent No. 1 on the date of the accident.3. Though respondent No. 2 has challenged about the negligence in driving on his part, the said contention is not acceptable. The clai...
Tag this Judgment!