Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All517
Aikman, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one of a somewhat peculiar nature. The defendants are the appellants here. They are zamindars of a village. Sultan Ali was a tenant of theirs. They ejected him by proceedings under the Rent Act. At the time of the ejectment there were standing crops on the tenant's holding. The zamindars, wishing to acquire those crops, tendered their price to the tenant. The parties not being able to agree as to the price, the zamindars applied to the Rent Court under Clause (g) Section 95 of Act No. XII of 1881, to determine the value of the crops. The Assistant Collector fixed the value at Rs. 237. Sultan Ali assigned his rights to receive this sum to one Murlidhar, the plaintiff in this suit. Murlidhar, the assignee, brought a suit in the court of the Munsif to recover from the zamindars the amount awarded as the value of the standing crops, together with interest. The lower appellate Court has decreed the greater part of the claim, allowing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All319
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is a narrow one, but it is none the less very important. It is whether or not, having regard to the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mortgage to be effective must bear either the autograph signature of the mortgagor or his mark. The facts of the case are simple and undisputed. On the 25th of August, 1896, one Kukur Bind borrowed a sum of Rs. 381 from the plaintiffs on the security of a mortgage, which provided that the interest on the mortgage-debt should be payable annually, and in default of payment of interest the mortgagee should be entitled to possession of the mortgaged property. Default was made in payment of the second instalment of interest, and in consequence the plaintiffs instituted this suit for possession of the mortgaged property. The mortgagor is illiterate, and the signature to the mortgage was made by the scribe of the deed by the direction and in the presence of the mortgagor. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All514
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakbpur, by which he has dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants under the following circumstances: Din Bandhu Pande, the father of the defendants respondents, executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs on the 18th March, 1892, the amount of consideration set forth in the mortgage-deed being Rs. 904. One Shuhrat Singh, a co-sharer in the village in which the mortgaged property was situate, brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of the mortgage. He alleged that the actual amount of consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 525, and not Rs. 904 as specified in the mortgage-deed. The court found in favour of the then plaintiff, and made a decree for pre-emption conditional upon the payment of Rs. 525. That amount has been received by the plaintiffs; and they now bring the present suit to recover from the defendants Rs. 379, the difference betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All511
Aikman, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of one C.J. Sullivan, who has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Meerut of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is on the merits. But a preliminary objection is also taken in the petition of appeal to the legality of the proceedings of the District Magistrate.2. Without entering into the merits of the case, I am of opinion that this appeal must be disposed of on the legal objection referred to. The appellant is an European British subject. The offence with which he was charged is an warrant case within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the provisions of Section 451, Sub-section (1) of the Code, an European British subject, in a trial before a District Magistrate in a warrant case may, 'before he enters on his defence under Section 256, claim that the trial shall be by jury.' It appears that, in the present case, at the outset of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All504
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, JJ.1. The suit out of which tins second appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover as against the defendants a sum of money alleged to be due on foot of a surety bond entered into by them on behalf of one Harnam, a judgment-debtor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs on the 30th of March, 1885, obtained a decree against Harnam. The decree was transferred to the Collector for execution on the 28th of May, 1886, the property to be sold being ancestral property. On the 30th of August, 1886, a compromise was entered into between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to give time to Harnam for payment of the debt, upon the condition that the defendants in the present suit should guarantee the payment of the debt. This they agreed to do, and they executed on the 30th of August, 1886, a bond, which provided that if Harnam failed to pay the amount of the decree by annual instalments of Rs. 100 with interest, the sureties would pay the amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All499
Blair, J.1. This appeal impugns the propriety of a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad dismissing the plaintiffs' suit under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs are the owners of a house adjacent to the site of a Hindu temple. Near their house stands in the temple inclosure a pipal tree, the branches of which extend over their house, and which has, of course, been growing there for many years. The plaintiffs, alleging that the branches of the tree afforded facilities for a thief to obtain entrance into their house, and endangered life and property, desired to cut those branches. They were prevented from so doing by the defendants. The plaintiffs ask that an injunction may be issued against the defendants, enjoining them not to offer obstruction to the cutting of those branches which spread over the plaintiffs' house. Both the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have found that the pipal tree is an object of veneration to pious Hindus, and has been growing there for over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All501
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore, remanding the case to the Subordinate Judge, under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the determination of the suit on the merits. The facts are shortly as follows: One Lachmi Narain was the owner of the property which is now in dispute. He died leaving a widow Mukhta Kunwar, and the plaintiff respondent Narain Das claims to hold the property in dispute under a lease which was granted by Mukhta Kunwar in her lifetime. His name was recorded as lessee on the 17th of April, 1897, and he remained in possession until the 27th November, 1897. 'What the nature and the terms of the letting made by Mukhta Kunwar to Narain Das are have not been determined by either the Court of first instance or the lower appellate Court, and we are in ignorance as to these matters. Mukhta Kunwar having died on the 16th of July 1897, the present defendant, Sheo Kumar, claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All483
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiffs appellants under the following circumstances: On the 1st of June, 1878, one Naubat Singh executed a mortgage in favour of Mukand Siugh and Munna Singh, the predecessors in title of the defendants first party. The mortgage comprised a 5 biswa share in the village Muzaffra, and shares in three other villages. Naubat Singh, Sher Singh and the mortgagees Mukand Singh and Munna Singh were joint owners of certain property. On the 6th of June, 1878, that is, five days after the mortgage, a partition took place between these persons, under which the whole of the village Muzaffra, including, of course, the five biswas mortgaged under the mortgage of the 1st of June, 1878, was allotted to the share of Mukand Singh and Munna Singh. On the 28th of June, 1880, Mukand Singh and the heirs of Munna Singh, who had in the meantime died, obtained a decree upon their mortgage against Naubat Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All487
Blair and Aikman, JJ.1. The plaintiff sued for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 1st of May, 1890. The mortgagees pleaded that the mortgage in question did not apply to the land which was sought to be redeemed, and they alleged that in the land sought to be redeemed they had a tenancy. The Court of the Munsif held that the mortgage did apply to the plot in which the tenancy of the mortgagees lay, and gave the plaintiff a decree for redemption; but, having regard to the fact of the existence of the tenancy, declined to give him a decree for possession. The Court of first appeal agreed with the finding that the mortgage applied to the plot of which the mortgagees declared themselves to be, and in the absence of evidence by the plaintiff must be taken to be, tenants. The first appellate Court, however, held that the defendants by their act of accepting the mortgage of the game land had changed the nature of their possession, and that the plaintiff, when he claimed redem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All493
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs to pre-empt certain villages. It appears that the defendant second party mortgaged the villages in dispute to the defendant first party on the 24th of July, 1890, by a deed of conditional sale. On the 12th of February, 1895, the defendant first party instituted a suit for foreclosure against the second party of defendants, and a primary decree was passed on the 25th of March, 1895. The order absolute for foreclosure was made on the 13th of February, 1896, and possession was obtained on the 10th of May, 1896. On the 4th of July, 1896, following, the present suit for pre-emption was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are co-sharers in the villages. They based their claim upon the terms of the wajib-ul-arz, to which we shall presently refer. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim; and thereupon an appeal was taken to the lower appellate Court, with th...
Tag this Judgment!