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!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)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)ILR24All231
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in a suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of the property of the late Syed Hasan Ali by right of inheritance, and for a declaration that a waqf-namah of the 27th of August, 1886, was invalid, and in-effectual according to Shia law.2. Syed Hasan Ali, who belonged to the Shia sect of Muhammadans, on the 27th of August, 1886, executed the deed which has given rise to this litigation. In it, after a recital of the uncertainty of life, the executant, 'with a view to earn merit in the next world and to benefit the persons mentioned in this document,' made a perpetual waqf 'for charitable purposes, and to benefit the persons mentioned' in the document according to the Muhammadan law of the Imamia sect of the whole of his movable and immovable property, with the exception of some small portions of property which he specified, subject to the conditions and details which follow.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All236
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Imperial Majesty in Council. The subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was under ten thousand rupees in value, but in an affidavit, which is attached to the application, it is stated that the title to an eight-anna share in mauza Kot Kamarhya of Pandit Hira Nand Chaube and of Pandit Chattardhari Chaube depends on the decision of the same question, and that the title of other purchasers to the rest of the villages mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition depends on the same question. In this way it is sought to make out that, though the value of the matter directly in dispute is below ten thousand rupees, yet the decree of this Court involves indirectly questions to or respecting the entire property mentioned in the schedule, which is valued at about 1,50,000 rupees. None of the properties which are said to be affected by the decree of this Court, and which are not in dispute before us, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All239
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Gorakhpur, remanding a case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur for determination upon the merits. The suit was brought for cancellation of a sale deed executed in favour of the appellant Mathura Das, upon a sale had in execution of a decree obtained by two persons, Baij Nath and Dilsukh, against the present appellant. The allegation of the plaintiffs in the suit is, that the sale was fraudulent, the same having been brought about collusively between the parties after the decree had been satisfied. The learned Officiating Subordinate Judge, in a carefully-considered judgment, held that the suit was not maintainable, having regard to the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he accordingly dismissed the suit. He also on an application made to him to treat the suit as equivalent to an application under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All242
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a degree of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, passed in favour of the plaintiff in a suit brought for recovery of certain zamindari property, and also of a sum of money. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The property in dispute belonged to one Ishk Lal, the father of the plaintiff, Musammat Dhapo. Ishk Lal died in the year 1881, leaving a widow, Musammat Sharna, surviving him, and also two daughters--one a married daughter Jai Dei, and the other the plaintiff, who was unmarried. Musammat Shama died on the 13th of March, 1886, and after her death the defendant, Kamji Lal, who was a brother of Ishk Lal, and Danlat Rani, who was a first cousin of Eamji Lal and father of the defendants Bansi Lal, Shitab Rai, Mul Chand, Tota Bam and Pirbhu Lal, took possession of the property in dispute. Shortly afterwards, in the year 1889, Jai Dei instituted a suit on behalf of herself and the plaintiff against Ramji Lal and Daulat Ram for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All254
John Stanley, C.J.1. There are no grounds for this application, Gulzari Lal was tried and convicted of the embezzlement of suing of money amounting in the aggregate to Rs. 37-3-6, moneys paid to him as patwari of a certain village by the tenants Under the Court of Wards, and which he represented that he had authority to collect. In the charge the aggregate amount of the items is slated, and, in addition to that, the particulars giving the dates and the amounts of three payments are also stated. It is to be observed that the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed within the period of one year, and therefore the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply. This sub-section is in the following terms: 'When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust, or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the...
Tag this Judgment!