Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1914All334; 24Ind.Cas.705
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage made on February 4th 1871 by the father of the respondent Bijai Singh in favour of Ramdin Singh, father of the four appellants.2. The mortgage was for a term of 40 years and was to be redeemed on the day following the completion of that term, but if the mortgagor failed to redeem on that day the mortgage was to hold good for a second terms of 40 years. It was also provided that the mortgagor should not be entitled to redeem the mortgage with borrowed money.3. The mortgage money was paid into Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property-Act on June 10th, 1911, but the appellants refused to accept it. The present suit was filed on September 9th, 1911.4. The defence was that the representative of the mortgagor was not entitled to claim redemption of the mortgage except on the day following the expiry of the term of 40 years. The Subordinate Judge accepted this plea and dismissed the suit. On appeal the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1916All68; 35Ind.Cas.718a
1. This is the defendants' appeal in a suit for possession of immoveable property, which has been decreed to the plaintiffs by the Court below.2. The plaintiffs are five Muhammadan gentlemen and their case is as follows:-- That Nawab Rukn-ud-Danla Muhammad Azmat Ali Khan was the owner of a large estate lying partly in the Punjab and partly in the Muzaffarnagar District of these Provinces, including the properties claimed; that the Nawab created a waqf of the aforesaid properties under a deed dated 25th August 1908 and registered on 1st September 1908; that he appointed himself the first mutawalli and remained in possession as such up to the date of his death on 26th December 1908; that in his lifetime on 9th November 1908, he executed a document, designated therein a 'trusteenamah,' framing rules for the management of the trust property and nominating six gentlemen to succeed him as trustees on his death; that four of these are among the plaintiffs; that one of them has died and the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 41Ind.Cas.652
George Knox, Acting C.J.1. Babu Anrudh Lal Mahendra, a Magistrate of the first class at Mirzapur, was satisfied from a Police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning certain lands situate in Jafar Khani within the local limits of his jurisdiction. He made an order in writing No. 3A on the record, stating the ground of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in the dispute to attend his Court on the 25th September 1916 and to put in written statements of their respective claims stating the fact of the actual possession of the subject of dispute. It has not been suggested that the order was not properly served as required by law and it may be taken, therefore, that the notices were originally issued in respect of about 4 bighas 19 biswas of land in Jafar Khani, but the Magistrate on reading the written statement and petitions of Matukdhari Singh came to the conclusion that the dispute realy existed about 19 bighas of land in Sherw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1918All24; (1919)ILR61All68; 48Ind.Cas.450
Walsh, J.1. We have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed. There has been a very full discussion, upon somewhat unfamiliar lines in this Court; but we have no doubt as to the proper conclusion which ought to be reached. The appeal is brought by the plaintiffs, the registered patentees of a process of manufacture, the plaintiffs consisting of Lakhpat Rai, Sampat Rai, and Manphul Narain, and carrying on business at No. 14, Mullick Street, Calcutta, against a judgment dismissing their suit brought against the defendants Srikishan Das, Bahal Rai and Bhup Narain, carrying on business at Farrukhabad, for infringement of the patent. One Prag Narain who figures somewhat prominently in the case, is a member of the plaintiffs' firm, but, for reasons best known to the plaintiffs, was not one of the applicants for the patent and is therefore not a necessary party to the suit. The ground upon which the suit was dismissed was a question of fact, namely that the process for which the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1921)ILR43All606
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This case has been referred to us by a single Judge of this Court because of the difficulty of reconciling certain decisions to which we will refer hereafter in detail, particularly the cases of Muhammad Yasin v. Ilahi Bakhsh (1915) 13 I.L.R. 34 All. 545 and Mohammad Ismail Khan v. Mithu Lal (1912) 11 A.L.J. 649, on the one hand, and the case of Daya Kisken v. Mohammad Wasir Ahmad (1915) 13 A.L.J. 833 on the other hand. We have come to the conclusion that these cases are not, as they appear to be, irreconcileable, and that if the facts underlying each decision are clearly ascertained and stated, they present a complete and satisfactory code upon this somewhat controversial question. We have also come to a clear view as to which side of the line the present case lies when its facts are understood, and we propose to lay down certain propositions which we think are established by the existing authorities in this Court on this troublesome question, with the hope th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All169
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. Those are two connected appeals arising out of two connected suits which have been litigated together throughout. The appeals may be disposed of by a single judgment. The suits were filed in the court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff, as lambardar and proprietor of two specified plots of land, sued the defendant as a rent-free grantee of the same and, admitting himself not to be entitled to resume the grant, claimed assessment of rent on the same. The written statement, as is often the case, was somewhat loosely drawn up, but beyond ail question the substantial defence on the facts was that the defendant, being a rent-free grantee of the land in question, had held the same as such for more than fifty years and through at least two successors to the original grantee and was, therefore, entitled to be declared proprietor of the same and to be assessed to revenue but not to rent. This refers of course, to the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act (L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All312; 65Ind.Cas.371
1. These are two connected appeals arising out of two connected suits which have been litigated together throughout. The appeals may be disposed of by a single judgment. The suits were filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff, as Lambardar and proprietor of two specified plots of land, sued the defendant as a rent-free grantee of the same and, admitting himself not to be entitled to resume the grant, claimed assessment of rent on the same. The written statement, as is often the case, was somewhat loosely drawn up, but beyond all question the substantial defence on the facts was that the defendant, being a rent-free grantee of the land in question, had held the same as such for more than fifty years and through at least two successors to the original grantee and was, therefore, entitled to be declared proprietor of the same and to be assessed to revenue but not to rent. This refers, of course, to the provisions of Section 158 of the Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1900)....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All401
Gokul Prasad and Stuart, JJ.1. We have before us Criminal Reference No. 747 of 1921 from the Sessions Judge of Benares, 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 defence 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 wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All546; 74Ind.Cas.349
1. The appellants in this case brought a suit in a Rent Court for the ejectment of the plaintiff-respondent from certain land.2. The respondent put forward the plea that he was the owner of the land and that it was grove land.3. The Rent Court took action, under Section 199 of the Tenancy Act and directed the respondent to file a suit in order to have the disputed question of title determined. It is out of this suit that this second appeal has arisen.4. In his plaint the respondent claimed to be the owner of the land in question as also of the trees situated upon it. He further claimed that he had sunk a well and had constructed a house on the land and he asked for a declaration of his proprietary title with respect to all this property. In the second paragraph of his plaint he stated that, even on the assumption that he was a grove-holder, the opposite party had no right in law to eject him.5. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff was not the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All489
Walsh, J.1. Two questions are involved in this reference, The first is, whether the exemptions from attachment and sale in execution of a decree, contained in the proviso to Section 60 of the Code, apply to a mortgagee's decree for sale.2. I have had the advantage of studying the judgments of my two brothers. They fully cover the ground and it is not necessary to do so again. They differ fundamentally, and each judgment appears on the face of it to be unanswerable.3. On the one hand, the section distinctly prohibits the sale of this property in execution of a decree. On the other hand, as Mr. Justice Mukerji's judgment shows, there is much in the section which is inappropriate to a mortgagee's decree for sale.4. Where a section of an Act is capable of two renderings, or is said to mean less or more than it says, it is a maxim of interpretation that one must look at the scope and object of the enactment. For this purpose it is helpful to recall the history.5. The rights of a mortgagor h...
Tag this Judgment!