Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom208; 82Ind.Cas.27
Marten, J.1. The point in this appeal is one of the onus of proof as to the date of the death of one Baji. The suit is an ejectment suit. The defendants have been in possession under a Court sale since 1889. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, relies for his title on a conveyance in 1910 by one Dwarkabai, who was a sister of Baji. The suit was brought as long ago as February 1911, and has already been remanded once by the High Court for an amendment of the pleadings. On that amended case, the plaintiff's case is that Annapurnabai, the wife of Baji, was a widow at the date of her death in 1908, and that Dwarka accordingly was a reversioner, and the plaintiff sues in right of Dwarka as reversioner. A further amendment was asked for on the remanded trial, which will be found in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, viz., to add Dwarka as a co-plaintiff. But that amendment was refused.2. Now the plaintiff is suing for possession, and the onus of proof is on him to make ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All731
1. This is an appeal by Kazim Ali Khan and Nisar Ahmad, defendants 1 and 3, against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar on a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Om Prakash and Kailash. Their claim for the recovery of possession over the plaint property and certain mesne profits was allowed. The principal plea taken in defence in the Court below as well as before us was that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. In order to appropriate this plea as well as the other pleas taken by the defendants, it is necessary to state in some detail the anterior history which has given rise to the present suit.2. It appears that one Raghunandan Prasad was the owner of some zamindari property which after his death came into the possession of his sons, Chandra Shekhar and Ghanshyam Das. These two executed three mortgages in the years 1905 and 1906 in favour of the defendants, and the mortgaged property was comprised in several khewats, viz. Nos. 20, 26 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All241; 145Ind.Cas.367
King, J.1. This reference arises out of an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The applicant B is an advocate practising at Benares. On 26th May 1932 a Bench of this Court passed an order suspending the applicant from practice for a term of three months. The applicant applied for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and on 10th June 1932 a certificate was granted that the case was a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council Under Order 45, Rule 7 the applicant was bound to furnish security, and to deposit the amount required for translation and printing, within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate or within 90 days from the date of the order complained of or within such further period not exceeding 60 days as the Court might upon cause shown allow. The term of six weeks from the grant of the certificate expired on 22nd July 1932 and no application was made for any extension of that term. By an order dated 27th July 1932, a Bench of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1921All327; 63Ind.Cas.425
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order of the District Judge of Benares, setting aside a decree of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Judge, holding that the suit had been erroneously dismissed upon a preliminary point of law, remanded the case for disposal on the merits.2. The material facts of the case are as follows:The defendants Nos. 1 to 11 held a decree against the defendants Nos. 12 to 19, in execution of which they brought to sale certain immoveable property of their judgment-debtors. The property being ancestral, the proceedings in execution were transferred to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such cases the Procedure of the Collector is regulated by Rules made by the Local Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 70 of the Code. A sale proclamation was drawn up in which the value of the property offered for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 66Ind.Cas.1005
Stuart, J.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 743 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Banares and Criminal Revisions Nos. 16 and 17 of 1922. The same point arises in all:-' Has the High Court authority to expunge from the judgments of lower Courts remarks reflecting unfavourably upon the credibility or the character of witnesses in cases in which the effective orders of the Courts are not before the High Court either in appeal or on revision ?' In the Reference the station-master of Benares Cantonment took exception to remarks reflecting upon himself made by a Magistrate at Benares in a judgment in a criminal case. In that case the accused persons were acquitted. The station-master appeared as a witness for the defense. The Magistrate, while finding that the evidence did not justify a conviction, disbelieved the station-master in certain particulars. We have it that the learned Sessions Judge believed the station-master to be telling the truth-a circumstance which goes far to re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.969
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff had an agreement in his favour for sale of certain mica mines, the property of certain Marwaris of this town. The mines are situated in the District of Nellore. It appears that, in pursuance of that agreement, a deed of sale was executed, but it was not registered as the plaintiff was unable to find the entire amount of the consideration for it. Rs. 450, however, part of the consideration money, was recovered from him by a suit in the Small Cause Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into negotiations with the 1st defendant, the 1st respondent in this appeal, with respect to the mines, I may mention that part of the property was free-hold and part of it was lease-hold. The term of the lease hold expired on 31st October 1907. The contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is embodied in two letters, Exhibits C and C1, which were exchanged between the parties on 4th February 1907, and the constriction of those letters is one of the important...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad865; (1938)2MLJ534
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly in O.S. No. 1 of 1929.2. The plaintiff in the suit is H.H. The Maharatta Thakore Sahib of Limbdi. In the appeal the question is raised as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sale of the suit properties in enforcement of an alleged sub-mortgage of an equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds, granted to him by the third defendant of the suit properties. These, called the Vadavoor lands, are situate in the Trichinopoly District. These and various other properties situated in Madras and Bangalore belonged to Messrs. Tawker & Sons, a well-known firm of jewellers in Madras. They mortgaged the title-deeds of all these properties to Messrs. Nagarseth & Sons, the third defendant in the present suit, in 1916 for a sum of over 18 lakhs of rupees borrowed from time to time for carrying on their family business. Exs. M, M-1 and M-2 are the documents which were deposited ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1943Mad714
Horwill, J.1. These applications under Section 491, Criminal P.C., have been filed because of the decision of the Federal Court, not yet published in the regular reports, that Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Defence of India Act is somewhat different in its scope from Section 2(2)(x), Defence of India Act, under which the rule has been framed, and that Rule 26 was therefore ultra vires of the Central Government which framed the rule. From that decision it follows that the petitioner before the Federal Court, as the petitioners here, was detained unlawfully. Since that judgment was pronounced however the Governor-General has issued Ordinance 14 of 1943 amending Section 2 (2)(x), Defence of India Act, to bring it into conformity with Rule 26.2. Two main points have been raised on behalf of the petitioners. The first is that the Governor-General had no power to amend an Act of the Indian Legislature, and the other is that the amendment could not have any retrospective effect. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.348
Richardson, J.1. The case as it seems to me is really a simple one. It relates to an instalment decree, dated the 21st December 1908. The decree is founded on a judgment in these terms:'Defendant admits the claim but prays for an order to pay by instalments. Plaintiff will get a decree with costs for the amount claimed to be paid in yearly instalments of Rs. 600 (six hundred) payable on July 15th each year with interest at 12 per cent. In default of any instalment the whole amount will be payable.'2. The decree itself runs as follows:'It is ordered that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Bs, 2,888-8-0 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, with the costs of the suit.3. The amount decreed with casts to be paid in yearly instalment of Rs. 600 (six hundred) payable on July 15th each year. In default of any instalment the whole amount will be payable.'4. In the decree the words underlined (italicised) are printed and it may be that the printed form of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1885)ILR11Cal106
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the two first charges are not sufficiently explicit, and that they should have contained such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as would have been sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he was charged.2. The foundation of both charges lay in the fact that the accused was alleged to have been a member of an unlawful assembly. 'An unlawful assembly' is defined by Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, and the alleged common object of the assembly ought to have been set out in the charges. An accused person is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy the exact value of the charge brought against him. Unless he has this knowledge he must be seriously prejudiced in his defence. This is true in all cases, but it is more especially true in cases where it is sought to implicate an accused person for acts not committed by himself, but by others with whom he was in company.3. The Session...
Tag this Judgment!