Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All690; 145Ind.Cas.481
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by 27 accused persons in what is known as the Meerut Conspiracy case. The trial has become somewhat notorious on account of its unprecedented duration. All the accused persons, except Hutchinson, were arrested in March 1929, (Hutchinson was arrested in June of the same year) and have all this time, except for the period during which some of them were released on bail, been detained in jail. The trial commenced in the Court of the Committing Magistrate on a complaint filed on 15th March 1929, and on a supplementary complaint against Hutchinson on 11th June 1929.2. The entire proceedings have now lasted for nearly four years and a half. This is accounted for as follows: (1) The preliminary proceedings before the Magistrate took over seven months, resulting in the commitment of the accused to the Court of Session on 14th January 1930; (2) in the Sessions Court the prosecution evidence took over 13 months; (3) the recording of the statements of the accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1935Cal39
1. Durgaprasad Singh succeeded to the gadi of the Jharia Raj in 1899, on the death of his elder brother Raja Joymangal Singh. The family is governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. By custom the raj is impartible, and succession to it is governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. Raja Durgaprasad died on 7th March 1916(=24th Falgun 1322 B.S.), leaving three widows, Ranee Prayagakumari, Ranee Subhadrakumari and Ranee Hemkumari, but no issue. The three Ranees were the plaintiffs in this suit; and one of them, namely, Ranee Subhadrakumari having died since the suit was commenced, the other two are now on the record as plaintiffs, in their own rights and also as her heirs and legal representatives. Raja Durgaprasad had, on 27th August 1915, made a will, purporting to dispose of some of the properties in dispute; but no detailed reference to its particulars are necessary because although its genuineness is beyond question, the parties have not, at any stage of this litigation, sou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All861
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises in the following circumstances:2. The property in dispute in the case belonged to one Ahmad Husain, who died on 10th December 1925, leaving two daughters, Mt. Akbari Begam and Mt. Soghra Begam, the two plaintiffs, and three sons, Rahmat Husain, Shafqat Husain and Azmat Husain, the three defendants. The plaintiffs instituted the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, on 10th December 1928 claiming their legal share in the immovable property entered in list A and in the moveables detailed in list B annexed to the plaint. Subsequently the plaint was amended and several deeds of gifts, which the defendants had relied on in the written statement filed in the meantime, were impugned on the ground that the same had been obtained by the exercise of undue influence. Similarly certain other gifts relied on by the defendants were impeached on the ground that the same, if made at all, were vitiated by marzul maut from which Ahmad Husain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All846
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of a written contract. Originally seven defendants filed this appeal jointly. With the exception of Bansidhar all the others applied to withdraw the appeal. So far as the adult appellants were concerned, their appeal has been withdrawn and they have submitted to the decree of the Court below. An application was made on behalf of the minor appellant, Har Mohan, by his guardian and also by his mother to withdraw the appeal, but no order was passed, inasmuch as it was not clear whether there had been any compromise with the minor's guardian and whether such a compromise was for the benefit of the minor.2. The parties belong to the same family with distinct branches. It appears that at one time all the members had a common fund, though the family was not joint in status. The leading members proposed to purchase three villages in Benares from Raja Madho Lal for a sum of Rs. 90,200. The plaintiff Ata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal348,150Ind.Cas.124
1. This appeal was, at the instance of the learned advocates for the parties concerned, heard before the appeal from Original Decree No. 248 of 1929, but as the said appeal arose out of a previously instituted suit, and inasmuch as the decision of the trial Court was given before the decision of the trial Court in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, we have dealt with the appeal No. 248 first. One of the main points argued before us in this appeal, arising out of the specific prayer in the plaint, is the same as the one decided by us in the other appeal, and our judgment in Appeal No. 248 is therefore to be treated as a part of this judgment.2. The previous history of the litigation is the same as that in the other case. The plaintiffs-respondents in this appeal, as members of the Mahomedan public, instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, with the sanction of the District Judge of Hooghly, Under Section 14 read with Section 18, Religious Endowments Act (Act 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom178; (1934)36BOMLR327
Shingne, J.1. The facts in this case are : Defendant on June 8, 1924, executed four bonds and a yadi of the total sum of Rs. 700 in favour of plaintiff's father, who died sometime thereafter, leaving three sons. Plaintiff is the eldest of them and the two others were then minors and were also minors at the date of the suit. It is not known if they have attained majority since then. It is stated that the bonds prescribed a time of one year for re-payment. The suit was filed on June 5, 1928, by the plaintiff alone. In the plaint, the plaintiff was named individually and the plaint stated in paragraph 7 that the original creditor-meaning thereby the plaintiff's father-being dead, plaintiff was his son and heir. The defendant objected to the plaint on the ground of non-joinder of the other brothers of the plaintiff, and alleged that the three constituted an undivided Hindu family, and that, as a consequence, the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom171; (1934)36BOMLR290
Shingne, J.1. On November 1, 1898, Ranchod, the father of plaintiff No. 2, sold the house in suit to one Bai Jivi for Rs. 899 under a registered deed. On the same day Bai Jivi executed an agreement in writing in favour of Ranchod, agreeing that she or her heirs would reconvey the house to Ranchod or his heirs on repayment of the sum of Rs. 899 with interest at eight annas per cent, per mensem. The agreement was not registered. Ranchod died leaving a son, who is plaintiff No. 2 in this case. Bai Jivi died leaving a daughter by name Bai Mani, who was the original defendant in this suit but died pending this suit. Her daughter Bai Dhanoo was, therefore, brought on record as her heir or legal representative. In October, 1918, plaintiff No. 2 assigned by a deed his right in the house to plaintiff No. 1. Prior to the assignment, plaintiff No. 2 had given to Bai Mani a notice (Exh. 42) asking the latter to make up the account in respect of the transaction and to reconvey the house on taking t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad126; 150Ind.Cas.448; (1934)66MLJ98
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of some importance regarding the construction of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927).2. Two suits were filed in the Lower Court, the plaintiffs being the members of the Board of Control of Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple, Tiruvarur. One of them was for the removal of the 1st defendant, described as the hereditary trustee of the kattalai known as Annadana Kattalai; the other related to the Abisheka Kattalai, in regard to which also the 1st defendant is the hereditary trustee. Various allegations of misconduct are made in these suits against the 1st defendant, and the suits were filed both under Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The consent of the Advocate-General under Section 92 was obtained, as also the consent of the Board under Section 73. A preliminary issue was raised in these suits, which runs thus:Is the suit sustainable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom79; (1934)36BOMLR47; 150Ind.Cas.478
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kania. The plaintiff sues the defendant upon Clause 9 of a certain award. His case, according to the plaint, is tha the and the defendant and certain other relatives of theirs were partners in a firm carried on in the name of the defendant, that is to say, as Maganlal Parbhudas, and that partnership was dissolved in 1929, when disputes arose between the parties which were referred by a written agreement to the arbitration of two gentlemen. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff, in consideration of his subscribing and procuring subscriptions for shares in the Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd., was to be entitled, under an agreement between himself and the defendant, to a share of a commission payable to the defendant by that company, of which the defendant and another were agents, and then it is alleged that by a verbal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant arrived at in the course of the arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All22
King, J.1. This is an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C. The applicant, Mt. Haidari Begum, prays that, on the grounds in her affidavit, this Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the opposite party (namely, S. Jawad Ali Shah, the applicant's husband) to produce before the Court the minor, S. Mazhar Ali Shah, at an early data, and that thereupon the child may be delivered to the applicant. For the purpose of disposing of this application we need only state the salient facts very briefly. S. Jawad Ali Shah was married in 1928 to the applicant. They had a son, S. Mazhar Ali Shah, whose age is now about ii years. In July 1933 the applicant was living with her husband and the child at Gorakhpur. On 30th July she left Gorakhpur for Lucknow in order to attend a ceremony at her parent's house. She left Gorakhpur by the night train.2. On her husband's advice she left the child with her husband, to avoid the risks of a night journey, on the understanding that her husband woul...
Tag this Judgment!