Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All133
Rustomjee, J.1. The facts in this case arose as follows. Defendant No. 1 had obtained a decree against the father of defendant No. 2, a minor. Under this decree certain houses, situated in mohalla Daraganj of the city of Allahabad, were attached and advertised for sale, with their site, for the 17th September, 1904. Upon this the plaintiff, who is entered in the Government papers as zamindar of the land on which the houses were built, brought a suit for a declaratory decree that he was the owner and possessor of the houses in question, and that they were not liable to be sold in execution of that decree. He further prayed that, in case of the sale of the materials of the houses being allowed, he should be declared entitled to dhik at the rate of Rs. 10 per cent, on the sale proceeds. He relied mainly on a condition which was entered in his wajib-ul-arz (record of rights); this is set out in extenso in paragraph 6 of the plaint and runs as follows: 'No tenant can build a new house witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All71
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff appellant during the course of the hearing of this appeal abandoned his claim to the grove, portion of the property sought to be recovered in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. It has been found by the lower appellate Court upon an issue remanded to it by this Court that the ruined house in kasba Kirakat, also claimed in the suit, was not self-acquired property of Sheobakhsh Rai, and the claim to this house therefore clearly fails. The only property therefore now in dispute between the parties is a 6 anna 8 pie share in kasba Kirakat khas and a 6 anna 8 pie share in Chak kasba. These two shares had been the self-acquired property of Sheobaksh Rai, the husband of Musammat Sheobarna Kunwar. He died childless many years ago leaving his widow him surviving. At time of his death his presumptive heirs were his two nephews Rameshar Dayal and Sheoambar Lal, sons of his uncle Bhairo Dat. The defendant Durga Charan Lal is the gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All64
Aikman, J.1. The plaintiff, who is respondent here, obtained from the lower appellate Court an injunction directing the appellants to close a certain door, which had been opened by them on the ground that it interfered with the plaintiff's privacy. The defendants come here in second appeal. The only plea urged before me is that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit as it was not shown that he was the owner of the house, the privacy of which was interfered with. In support of this plea reference is made to the case--Gokul Prasad v. Radho (1888) I.L.R., 10 All., 358. It is true that at page 387 of the judgment in that case, it is said that an owner of a house has a good cause of action where there is substantial interference with the right of privacy. But I cannot take this as deciding that the owner only has a good cause of action in such a case. There is no reason why a lessee, or other person who is in lawful possession of premises, may not maintain an action if his right of priva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All125
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The member of the family of Sheikh Nazir-ud-din were the co-sharers in a six pie share in patti Nanku Singh, mauza Gauhari. In the years 1903 and 1904 they sold their shares to the defendant, Abdul Hamid, in seven different sale transactions. These sales were carried out by seven sale-deeds. To two of these sale-deeds alone were the defendants respondents, Rashid-ud-din and Mukhtar Ahmad, parties. These co-plaintiffs owned shares in the patti which were not conveyed by them to Abdul Hamid, and they continued to hold these shares. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted on the 24th of September 1904, by the plaintiff appellant, Liakat Husain, who is also a co-sharer in the village, to pre-empt the sales so carried out in favour of Abdul Hamid who was a stranger to the coparcenary body. Before, however, the suit was instituted, namely, on the 16th of September 1904, Abdul Hamid sold and conveyed all the property he had so purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All61
George Knox, J.1. On the 15th of May 1906 the Collector and Magistrate of Bijnor directed a Deputy Magistrate subordinate to him to charge a certain pleader under Section 14 with improper conduct and to adjudicate on the charge. The improper conduct in another portion of the order is set out as consisting of tempting and enticing two subordinates of the Collector's office to act contrary to their duty in allowing him, the pleader, to examine the treasury account-book. The pleader concerned applied to this Court under 'Section 15 of the Indian High Courts' Act' and asked this Court to direct the Collector of Bijnor not to make any inquiry. The learned Counsel who appears for the pleader concerned contends that Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879, empowers Courts subordinate to this Court only to hold inquiry into case which fall within Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13 of the said Act. Clause (f) of the same section, which contains the words 'for any other reasonable cause,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All122
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: On the death of his father Gajadhar, his son, Ghurau, succeeded to the property which is the subject matter of this litigation. He died in the month of February 1904, leaving a widow, Musammat Thakur Dei, and a mother, Musammat Khuddo. The parties belong to the Kasodhan caste, and according to the custom of this caste a widow is entitled to re-marry. Musammat Thakur Dei did re-marry. She, on the 3rd of September 1904, transferred the interest which she derived from her husband in the property by gift to the plaintiffs. On the same day Musammat Khuddo sold the same property to Lachhman Prasad, defendant, second party, and he in his turn mortgaged the property in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. The main contention in the Court below and before us was that Musammat Thakur Dei, by reason of her re-marriage, forfeited her interest in her husband's property under the provisions of Section 2 of Act XV of 1856. Ano...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All109
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The litigation which has given rise to this appeal concerns the property which belonged to three brothers, namely, Dalpat Gir, Ganpat Gir and Dhanpat Gir, the sons of one Ram Gir. Dhanpat Gir died about the year 1895, leaving his brothers surviving him. Dalpat Gir died in the month of January 1902, leaving a widow, Musammat Beldevi. On the 26th of May 1902, Ganpat Gir died, leaving the defendant Musammat Ram Rakkhi, who is said to have been a mistress, and a son by her, namely, the defendant Chhajju Gir. The parties belong to the goshain community, and the plaintiff's case is that the property of a member of that community devolves upon his chela or disciple, and that according to custom the widow of a deceased goshain, in case her husband has no disciple at the time of his death, may nominate a disciple with the authority of the members of the community, and that the disciple so nominated succeeds to the property of her husband; that the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All93
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: One Kishan Prasad was at the time of his death possessed of considerable movable and immovable property. He had two sons, namely, Banke Bihari, who predeceased his father, and Ram Ratan. Banke Bihari left two sons, namely, Lal Bihari and Chhail Bihari. The plaintiff, Musammat Durga Dei, is the widow of Lal Bihari, who is dead. Lal Bihari had a son named Kishna Murari, who is also dead. In the year 1896, the there surviving members of the family, namely, Ram Ratan and his nephews Lal Bihari and Chhail Bihari, entered into an agreement whereby they left it to arbitrators to divide the assets of Kishan Prasad in any way they might think fit. It would appear that Ram Ratan was desirous of having a definite share allotted to him and of separating from his nephews. An arbitration award was drawn up whereby the immovable property was divided into two shares and one share allotted to Ram Ratan and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All50
John Stanley, C.J. and Rustomjee, J.1. The plaintiff respondent was the auction purchaser of a house. Subsequently to his purchase it was sold in execution of a decree enforcing a mortgage created by two unregistered bonds of different dates. When the property was put up for sale, the defendant, who had two mortgage bonds of the value of Rs. 99 each of even date (the 22nd of November 1899)) applied that his lien may be proclaimed. The plaintiff objected, but his objections were dismissed. He then brought the present suit under Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge's Court, and was decided by the Subordinate Judge. He held that as the two mortgage deeds formed portions of one and the same transaction by which a sum of Rs. 198 had been borrowed by the mortgagor from the mortgagee, the transaction should have been embodied in one deed of the value of Rs. 198. This would have necessitated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All52
Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by two ladies who, as daughters of one Bisharat Ali, laid an action in ejectment against certain persons, purchasers of the property in dispute. These last named persons are in possession of that property under a sale-deed executed in their favour by one Kasim Ali, a son of the same Bisharat Ali. Kasim Ali was arrayed as co-defendant with his vendees.2. They also asked for mesne profits.3. Both the Courts below decreed the claim. The appellants, who are some out of the transferees from Kasim Ali, have come here in second appeal. They set out in their memorandum of appeal four pleas. The first and second were not pressed, but the third and fourth have been maintained, and we are indebted to the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants for a very able, elaborate and exhaustive argument on the remaining pleas. Before entering upon this argument it is better to set out the facts of the case.4. The property in dispute was or...
Tag this Judgment!