Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All771
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for damages on the ground for breach of a covenant for title and quiet enjoyment. It is now an admitted fact that four annas share was in the possession of Mt. Badam Kunwar which had been originally acquired by her deceased husband, Ajodhia Prasad. On 17th February 1877 she along with her husband's brother and nephew and her own daughters executed a sale deed of this share in favour of Abdul Majid in the name of his wife, Mt. Wahidunnisa (p. 23). She asserted in the deed that she was the absolute owner of the property and had full power to transfer it, and this assertion was accepted by the other executants. There was also a recital in this document that a sum of Rs. 5,000, which was the sale consideration, had been required by her for various necessities. It is an admitted fact that Abdul Majid had owned the remaining twelve annas share in the three villages in dispute. Thus after 1877 Abdul Majid became the sole owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All436
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant who is a zamindar along with his brother of a certain plot of land in a village sued the defendants-tenants Lallu and Abdul Ghani for recovery of rent. The other brother Abdul Rashid was not made a party either as plaintiff or as defendant. It is obvious from the tenor of the plaint that he desired to sue under the provisions of Section 266(1), Tenancy Act. What was stated in para. 1 of the plaint was that he was the zamindar making collections in respect of the muafi land situated in a certain village. The obvious interpretation of these words will be that he sued for himself and as agent of his brother. It was argued here by the respondents learned counsel that the mere statement of being a collecting co-sharer did not indicate a claim that he was an agent of his brother. It is not apparent how otherwise except by reason of agency one co-sharer can collect rent on behalf of another. A specific issue was raised whether the plaintiff was agent of his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All162
Sen, J.1. This and the connected Appeal raise the same questions of law and may be disposed of together.2. A creditor firm known by the style of Narain Das Dori Lal applied that the following six firms be adjudicated insolvents : (1) Hazari Lal Tota Ram of Bahjoi; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bombay; (3) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Jallandhar; (4) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Hoshiarpur; (5) Bhekhari Das Ishar Das of Hapur and (6) Bhekhari Das Hazari Lal of Bahjoi. '3. The petitioning creditors staged in their application, dated 21st May 1925, that the partners of these firms were 29 in number and included Hazari Lal, Tota Sam and their minor sons. Anand Prakash is a minor son of Hazari Lal. Chaitan Sarup is a minor son of Tota Ram. It has not been controverted that Hazari Lal and Tota Ram, together with their sons, adults and minors, are members of a joint Hindu family. The application for adjudication was opposed, amongst others, by Anand Prakash and Chaitan Sarup upon a variety of gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All200
Dalal, J.1. I am of opinion that the subordinate Courts were correct in holding that the present suit was not barred by res judicata. The plaintiff, who is obviously a persistent claimant, sued in 1912 in the revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendant from pasture land. The revenue Court refused to take cognizance on the ground that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction. For that reason the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. It is true that the plaint ought to have been returned. This was a defect of procedure, but did not amount to any decision on the matter in issue. There was again litigation in 1922 in the revenue Court, which again denied jurisdiction. Subsequently the present Tenancy Act (3 of 1926) was passed and the revenue Court was definitely given jurisdiction to deal with ejectment suits relating to pasture land. The plaintiff again went to the revenue Court for ejectment of the defendant and succeeded this time. The defence of res judicata was not accepted, and I think ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All244
Mukerji, J.1. The question that has been referred for decision to the Full Bench is a short one, namely:Whether under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Act 5 of 1908), an application for review of a judgment, passed by a Bench hearing an appeal from the decision of a single Judge of the Court under C1.10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court, lies.2. The answer to the question depends on the further question whether the Civil Procedure Code applies to a hearing of a Letters Patent appeal. By Section 117, Civil P.C., the provisions of the Code except as provided therein, apply to chartered High Courts. Unless therefore the hearing of a Letters Patent appeal comes within the exceptions mentioned in Section 117 the provision of the Civil Procedure Code would apply to such an appeal. It is conceded that the exceptions enumerated do not apply to such an appeal except Rule 35, Order 41, Civil P.C. The Bench of a High Court hearing an appeal from the decision of a single...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All294
1. The facts of the. case which have occasioned this reference to the Full Bench lie within a narrow orbit and may be briefly indicated. Radha Mohan Datt brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Benares against several defendants for recovery of Rs. 3,500. Defendant 1, remained absent throughout and did not contest the suit. Defendants 2 to 4 were represented by counsel. They appear to have raised certain objections with regard to commission. Defendants 6 to 7 repudiated all connexion with the transaction which had given rise to the claim and impugned their liability in toto. The case was fixed for final disposal on 4th April 1929. On this date, defendants 2 to 4 through their pleader asked for grant of an instalment decree. Defendants 5 to 7 also appeared through a pleader and prayed for a postponement of the case to enable them to have certain witnesses examined on commission. This petition was rejected. Their counsel intimated that he had no instructions to proceed with the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All394
Bennet, J.1. By this appeal Khushal Singh and others are claiming a large sum of money as compensation over and above what has been allowed to them by the learned District Judge.2. It appears that an area of 7 bighas 15 biswas, which is equivalent to 484 acres of land belonging to the appellants, was acquired by the Government. Out of this area 4 bighas 13 biswas were under cultivation, being the sir land of the appellants. The remaining area of 3 bighas 2 biswas were fallow or banjar land. In this appeal we are concerned, among other matters, with the amount of compensation to be awarded for the area under cultivation. The appellants are satisfied with the amount they have got from the learned District Judge as compensation for the fallow land.3. The District Judge has allowed to the appellants Rs. 600 per bigha compensation for the land under cultivation. The appellants want Rs. 1,000 a bigha.4. We have been taken through five exemplars cited on behalf of the appellants. They are fiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All18; 136Ind.Cas.91
Sen, J.1. The person concerned in this criminal reference is one Joti Prasad Gupta, an advocate of this Court, practising at Meerut. On 13th April 1930, he made a speech on the Barafkhana Ground at Meerut before an audience consisting of about ten thousand persons in which he urged them to break the salt law. He also sold certain packets of contraband salt said to have been manufactured at Ghaziabad. He was prosecuted under Section 9(a), Salt Act (Act 12 of 1888) and under Section 117, I.P.C., before a Magistrate First Class and was convicted of both the offences. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment under the former section and to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under the latter section. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.2. Before the Magistrate Joti Prasad Gupta 'took no part in the proceedings.' He refused to say anything in his defence and declined to produce any evidence on his behalf.3. He preferred no appeal against his conviction or sentence.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All489; 136Ind.Cas.284
Sulaiman, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench for consideration. They are:(1) Whether an application for the grant of probate of an oral will can be entertained under the Probate and Administration Act (Act 5 of (1881);and(2) whether the Act would apply to a case where the substance of the oral will was taken down by a witness at the time.2. If the questions were res integra and we had to consider nothing but the provisions of the Probate and Administration Act (Act 5 of 1881) there would be considerable difficulty in holding that a. probate of an oral will would be granted.3. No doubt the definition of 'will' though not that of 'codicil' in Section 3 was wide enough to include an oral will. But 'probate' was defined as meaning the copy of a will certified under the seal of a Court of competent jurisdiction, with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator. We then had Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 relating to the grants limited in operation. The language ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All199
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against the decree passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Pilibhit dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit for recovery of Rs. 250 principal and Rs. 30 interest on what purports to be an acknowledgment of liability, but has been wrongly described by the Court below as a promissory note. As considerable importance has come to be attached to its contents in course of the arguments before us,'-it is desirable to quote it in extenso. It runs as follows:A sum of Rs. 250, half of which is Rs. 125, has been found due by me to Shaikh Abdur Rafiq...on settlement of account (fahmid hesab kitab) in respect of dealings between me and him (Abdur Rafiq) up to date. These presents are therefore executed to be of service in case cf need.2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that dealings hetween the parties were taken account of on 3rd May 1929 when the sum of Rs. 250 was found due to the plaintiff from the def...
Tag this Judgment!