Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All333
Lindsay, J.1. The material facts are set ont in the order of my learned colleague.2. On the evidence furnished by the 'zamima khewat' which was drawn up in the year 1886, it has already been decided that there was a contract entered into in that year providing for a right of pre-emption. The period of the contract was the period of the settlement and that, as my learned brother has pointed out, was to come to an end on the 30th of June, 1919. It was, therefore, a contract for a definite period, and admittedly the sale now sought to be pre-empted was made on the 10th of May, 1919, that is, within the period of the contract.3. It is this sale which according to the plaintiff gives him his cause of action, and the question is whether he is entitled to enforce his right of pre-emption, arising out of the contract, against the vendor and the purchaser.4. It is found that the father of the plaintiff and the grandfather of the vendor signed the wajib-ul-arz and were, therefore, parties to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All465; 80Ind.Cas.661
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Neave, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun, returning a plaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It illustrates the importance of the questions of this character which arise, and it also illustrates the necessity of the courts being somewhat careful in applying the law so as not to impose an unreasonable and unanticipated burden upon commercial men, of being dragged from their place of business to defend suits, 800 miles away in parts of the world with which they have no concern whatever. This inconvenience is illustrated by the misfortune that we have not had the advantage of hearing counsel in this case on behalf of the respondent who resides and carries on business in Bombay. Dr. Katju, however, on behalf of the appellant, has argued the matter very fully, and has really taken us over all the ground which is relevant. The suit arises out of a relationship of the following character:The plaintiff carries on some sort o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All8
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Mt. Dulhma in favour of her daughter Musammat Maharaji is invalid as against the right of the reversioners. The pedigree of the family to which the parties belong is given in the judgment of the Court below. Musammat Dulhma's husband, Ram Adhin, was the last survivor of the joint family to which he belonged and on his death Musammat Dulhma succeeded to a widow's interest in the property. She has three daughters who are all alive and are defendants to the; suit, and at the time of the institution of the suit there was also a daughter's son, Bachcha, who was Defendant No. 5. This child has since died.2. The gift was in favour of one only of Musammat Dulhma's three daughters. The Courts below have held that it was valid as an acceleration of the widow's life interest. This finding is erroneous. It was held by the Privy Council in. Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden A.I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All253a
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff, Ram Ugrah Singh, is a graduate of the Benares Hindu University. In the month of July, 1924, he presented himself at an examination held under the authority of the said University, described as the 'Previous LL. B. Examination.' The results were publish-on the 11th of August, 1924, and the plaintiff's name did not appear in the list of candidates who had passed the examination. On the 30th of August, 1924 the plaintiff addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University a petition (Exhibit 5), in which he protested that, under the regulations of the University in force at the time when he sat for the examination and which continued in force until after the results of the said examination had been published, he (the petitioner) had in fact passed the examination in the third class. He, therefore, requested the Vice-Chancellor to re-consider the whale situation, to adjudge the petitioner to have passed the Previous LL. B. Examination and to promot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All380; 87Ind.Cas.51
Daniels, J.1. This judgment relates to three connected appeals which have been laid before a Full Bench because of the extreme importance of the questions involved. The appeals challenge the validity of certain sections of the U.P. Municipalities Act. All three arise out of a contested election for seats on the Municipal Board of Muttra which was held in the early part of 1923. There were four candidates for three seats. A poll was held and the appellant, Abdur Rahman, son of Ismail, was one of the persons declared to be elected. Section 22 of the U.P. Municipalites Act, 1916, provides a special tribunal for the decision of disputes arising out of a Municipal election. Under the provisions of that section the respondent, Abdur Rahman, son of Zahuri, presented a petition against the election of the appellant, urging that it was vitiated by various corrupt practices. This petition was heard and determined by the Commissioner as an election Court under the provisions of the Act. The Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All503
Walsh, J.1. This matter arises in the following way : An appeal was filed in this Court on the 7th of April, 1922, on behalf of Rai Bahadur Ghaudhri Gajendra Singh against Srimati Durga Kumari, the relief sought by which was to set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, dated the 23rd of January, 1922, and the value of such appeal was stated at Rs. 73,841/10. On the 23rd of January, 1924, that is to say, nearly two years afterwards, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent to the above-mentioned appeal, which, it should be mentioned, was an Execution First Appeal, asking that the said appeal should be dismissed. The application did not in terms ask this Court to record an adjustment, or to decide any question under Order 23, Rule 3. The affidavit in support of it set out the fact that an agreement and what was called an award made under the said agreement, had been come to between the parties and alleged that the appellant in the said appeal had no right to c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1925All595
Mears, C.J.1. The facts of this case will be better understood by a reference to the following pedigree:Hira Lal|-----------------------------------------------| | |Chuni Lal Ram Kumar Ram Gopal| | |--------------- Nandan Lal | | | | Bal Mukand Hansraj | | |Ganga Baksh || | ------------------- || | |Vital Das Nanik Chand |(Deft. 3) (Deft. 4) |-------------------------------------------------------| | | |Ram Ballahb Ram Belas Ram Niwas Hemraj(Deft. 1) (Deft. 2) |Sons2. This is the appeal of the plaintiffs from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in a suit for specific performance. The learned Subordinate Judge decided, for reasons which we shall discuss, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief claimed by them. The plaintiff-firm is known as Swarath Ram-Ram Saran and Sital Prasad is one of the owners of that firm. For many years they had occupied as tenants a godown at Agra. The landlords were the defendants. The defendants in the year 1913 mortgaged this godown toget...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All21; 90Ind.Cas.290
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr upholding a complaint of an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. made by the Munsif of Ghaziabad against; the applicant Dwarka Prasad. The learned District Judge in upholding the Munsif's order also added a charge under Section 193 and the applicant asks that his application be treated as an appeal. Three points have been urged:(1) That Section 476, Criminal P.C. is inapplicable to the offence under Section 471, I.P.C. because the alleged offence was not committed by a party to the suit but by a witness; (2) That the order should not have been passed without a preliminary inquiry; and (3) That the order under Section 193 is bad because the passages in the applicant's evidence alleged to be false are not quoted in the judgment. The first point is one on which there was a difference of opinion between the different High Courts prior to the amendment of the Code in the year 1923. The Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All204a
Lindsay, J.1. This case comes before us on a reference made by the District Judge of Moradabad under the provisions of Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C.2. The facts are as follows:In execution of a decree obtained against the minor heirs of one Abdus Sattar, deceased, certain immovable property of the judgment-debtors was attached and notified for sale. This property was sold by auction on 20th October 1924. On 23rd March 1924 the guardian of the minors had entered into a contract with Mt. Rifaqat-un-nisa for sale to her of the property which was under attachment. At that time the guardian (Mb. Fatima-ul-Hasna) had not obtained from the District Judge the sanction to the transfer which it was necessary for her, as the certificated guardian, to secure. The Judge's sanction was not got till 25th September 1924. Acting on the sanction so obtained, she executed a sale deed of the property in favour of Mt. Rifaqat-un-nisa on 23rd of October 1924, i.e., three days after the Court sale. On 19th No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1927All114
King, J.1. This was a suit to recover money due on two mortgages. The first mortgage was dated the 21st July 1892. The mortgage money became due on 21st of July 1897 and the period of limitation for the suit, under Article 132, expired on the 21st of July 1909. The second mortgage was dated the 12th of September 1892. The mortgage money became due on 12th September 1896, and the period of limitation, under Article 132, expired on the 12th September 1908. The plaintiff's case is that the suit could have been instituted under Section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, up to the 6th of August 1910, and before the expiration of that special period of limitation, namely, on the 18th July 1910, he obtained a written acknowledgment of the mortgagor's liability under the deeds in suit so that his period of limitation was extended under Section 19 of the Act up to the 18th July 1922. The suit was in fact instituted on the 27th of February 1922.2. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on ...
Tag this Judgment!