Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All256
John Stanley, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, submitting the record to the High Court with a recommendation that the commitment of the accused Kali Charan Arakh, Behari Arakh, and Girdhari Arakh, who are British subjects, be quashed under Section 215 of Act No. V of 1898, on the ground that the name was illegal. The offence with which the accused are charged is alleged to have been committed in Nepal. The Magistrate inquired into the charge without having the certificate of the Political Agent of Nepal as required by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section provides that no charge as to, among others, an offence committed beyond the limits of British India, or by a British subject in the territories of any Native Prince or Chief in India, shall be enquired into in British India unless the Political Agent, if there be one, for the territory in which the offence is said to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All190
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This is the appeal of the defendant in the suit which gave rise to first appeal No. 187 of 1898, decided by us to-day. The only question which we have to consider in this appeal is, whether a waqf of movable property is valid under the Muhammadan law. The appropriator Fakhr-ud-din included in the deed of waqf executed by him a sum of Rs. 11,000, which he had deposited with a firm in Cawnpore. The deed contains the following provisions in regard to the disposal of the said sum: 'Rs. 5,000, out of the endowed sum of Rs. 11,000, will be spent in constructing a mosque with shops at a proper place. The income of the shops will, according to the opinion of the mutawalli (Superintendent), be applied towards the expenses of the said mosque, i,e., on account of Imam (one who leads at prayer) and Muazzin (one who calls for prayer), &c.;, and the mutawalli will construct a pacca well where it is required. The remaining amount out of the endowed sum of Rs. 11,000 and also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All195
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent to recover possession of property which originally belonged to one Dhanraj, who died on the 3rd of April, 1885. Dhanraj left surviving him two widows, Musammat Lali, the appellant before us, and Musammat Sundar, now deceased, and a son by Musammat Lali, named Nand Lal, who is also dead. The property is now in the possession of Musammat Lali. The plaintiff alleges that he was adopted by Dhanraj in Sambat 1927, corresponding to 1870-71, and was brought up and maintained by him. He also alleges that at the settlement of 1877, Dhanraj made a will, which he caused to be recorded in the village administration paper, to the effect that on his death the plaintiff should be his heir, and that if a son should be born to him (Dhanraj), the son and the plaintiff should hold the property in equal shares. He states that after the death of Dhanraj, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff's name to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All185
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal and a cross appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. The suit was brought by the appellant Bank for possession of certain zamindari property situate in several villages on the ground that the defendants had acquired no right to it under a purchase made by them on the 21st of November, 1896, and in the alternative for redemption of the property on payment of the sum of Rs. 4,500, which sum represents the purchase-money paid by the respondents on the occasion of their purchase, or a sum of Rs. 7,450, which was the amount of the defendants' mortgage at the date of the institution of their suit. The facts are shortly these. One Suraj Mal borrowed Rs, 12,000 from the appellant Bank, and by way of security for the payment of this sum and interest, executed a deed of mortgage on the 16th of July, 1892. On foot of thi3 mortgage the Bank instituted a suit for recovery of the moneys due to them, and obtained a decree fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All189
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. The question in this appeal arises under the Land Acquisition Act. Certain property was taken over by Government, the present owners of which are two Hindu widows whose husbands owned the property. A party, representing himself to be the reversionary heir, has objected to the payment of the compensation money to the widows on the ground that they were not parties competent to alienate the land, within the provisions of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear that this section contemplates a present power to alienate, and it is also well settled that Hindu widows cannot, of their own free will, alienate property except for special legal necessities. This was so decided in the case of Sheoratan Rai v. Mohri Weekly Notes 1899 p. 96. We consider that the decision in that case was perfectly correct and governs the present case, and we most therefore allow the appeal, and pass an order under the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!