Allahabad Court May 1902 Judgments
Chajmal Das Vs. Lal Dharam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All481
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are these. One Dharam Singh obtained a decree against Brij Bhukan Lal and others oh the 21st September 1895. That was a decree for sale upon a mortgage. After the sale of the mortgaged property the decree-holder obtained, on the 10th February, 1900, a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. In execution of this decree he caused a decree held by Brij Bhukan Lal and ors. against one Chajmal Das, dated the 9th September, 1892, to be attached. It is common ground-that the decree last mentioned was passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, and was not in course of execution at the time when it was attached. It is also admitted that Dharam Singh by virtue of the attachment did not apply for the execution of the decree. It appears that Chajmal Das holds a decree, dated the 5th October, 1882, against Brij Bhukan Lal and ors. He came forward with an application to the Court which ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad Vs. Jai Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All479
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The appellant got a decree for sale under the provisions of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree was for sale on redemption by the appellant of two prior mortgages, one simple and one usufructuary. He paid into Court certain sums for satisfaction of the prior mortgages, and applied for the sale of the property. The Court of first instance disallowed his application on the ground that the payments by him had not been made within the time prescribed by the decree. The decree-holder appealed. The learned District Judge dismissed his appeal, although not on the ground upon which the Court of first instance had proceeded. The learned District Judge states that the decree-holder had paid the principal only of the two prior mortgages. It is admitted by the vakil for the respondent that the learned Judge has fallen into error as regards one of the mortgages, viz. the simple mortgage, inasmuch as the record shows that the appellant paid not only the p...
Tag this Judgment!Chintaman Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All472
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen relates to certain money left in the firm of a banker of Benares by one Sita Ram Dikshit, a Marattha Brahmin governed by the Maharashtra school of Hindu law. He had two sons, Bishan Dikshit and Gobind Dikshit, both of whom pre-deceased him. Musammat Parbati is the widow of Bishan Dikshit, and Musammat Annapurna is the widow of Gobind Dikshit. Chintaman, the plaintiff, was, adopted by Musammat Annapurna after the death of her husband. Before that Musammat Parbati had adopted Sita Ram, the appellant before us, who is the son of Salu Bai, the daughter of Sita Ram Dikshit. Salu Bai is admittedly alive. Chintaman claims a half share of the money by virtue of his adoption by Musammat Annapurna.2. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but decreed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. It is conceded that by virtue of the adoptions made by the two daughters-in-law of Sita Ram Dikshit, the adopted sons coul...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nabbu Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All471
Blair, J.1. In this case the Magistrate in binding over a person to be of good behaviour under Section 110 and other sections, in prescribing the class of sureties required, has limited them to residents in the Municipal borough of Mirzapur. Having regard to the ruling of the late Chief Justice Sir John Edge, reported in I.L.R. 20 All. 206, and several rulings of the Calcutta Court to which my attention has been called, I find myself unable to say that it is not in the power of the Court in ordering securities to be given to assign some geographical limit within which such sureties must reside. It is obvious that sureties from a remote spot would not be in a position to keep an eye on or exercise any control over a person bound over. I think, however, in this case for reasons put before me, that the narrowness of the limit might impose upon the person to be bound over an inability to find sureties at all, and he might therefore be sent to prison because such persons who might be willin...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Bibi Vs. Sheikh Jhau and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All532
1. In this case one Musammat Bholi Bibi instituted a suit against Binda Prasad and Sheikh Jhau, her son, for a declaration that certain shares in two villages were not liable to be sold in execution of a decree obtained by one Baijnath against her son, Sheikh Jhau. The lower Court dismissed the suit, and thereupon Bholi Bibi appealed, but died before the determination of the appeal. Musammat Jamna Bibi applied to the Court to be brought on the record in the place of Bholi Bibi, alleging that she was the assignee of the shares in the property in dispute under a parole gift made to her by Bholi Bibi prior to her death. The District Judge found that the alleged assignment was not proved, and refused the application. Hence the present appeal.2. The appeal came before a Bench of this Court, when a preliminary objection was taken by the learned vakil for the respondents to the hearing of the appeal, on the ground that the order of the District Judge being one under Section 372 of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Das Vs. Gulab Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All464
Aikman and Banerji, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent upon two hundis drawn by Musammat Mohan Kunwar in favour of the plaintiff. Mohan Kunwar being dead the suit was brought against the defendant-appellant as her legal representative. The defence was a denial of the hundis. The Court of first instance (the Munsif of Agra) dismissed the suit, holding that the execution of the hundis was not proved. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned Subordinate Judge came to an opposite finding upon a consideration of the evidence, and holding that the hundis were proved, granted the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed, to be recovered from the estate of Mohan Kunwar. Against this decree the present appeal has been filed. The first ground taken in the memorandum of appeal is admittedly one which cannot be supported. It is to the effect that the appellant is not liable in law for the payment of Mohan Kunwar's debt. The appellant has not been made persona...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniz Rasul and anr. Vs. Raghunath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All467
Banerji, J.1. The defendants Nos. 4 and 5 obtained a decree against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and in execution thereof caused the immovable property of those defendants to be attached. That property being ancestral, execution of the decree was transferred to the Collector under Section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 22nd of September, 1891, the property was sold by auction and was purchased by the present plaintiff. The judgment-debtors applied to the Collector to have the sale set aside, and thereupon, on the 30th of October, 1891, the Collector set aside the sale and ordered a fresh proclamation of sale to be issued. This order of the Collector was confirmed by the Commissioner on appeal on the 4th of May, 1892. After the setting aside of the sale the judgment-debtors mortgaged, on the 14th of December, 1891, the bulk of the property, with the permission of the Collector, to the defendants Nos. 6 and 7. The money raised by this mortgage was paid into Court in discha...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Lal Vs. Dildar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All465
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, who is appellant here, to recover from his lessee arrears of rent for the years 1303 and 1304 Fasli. The short question raised in this appeal is whether, when the Local Government, under Section 23 of the Rent Act, suspends payment of revenue, and when suspension of rent has in consequence been ordered, a lessee is entitled, to the benefit of the latter suspension. If he is, this appeal must fail. We are clearly of opinion that under the terms of Section 23 the defendant lessee was entitled to suspension of payment of the money payable by him under his lease. The result is, that the finding of the learned District Judge, that at the date of the suit nothing was due from the defendant as to the first two instalments of rent, and that the suit as regards the remaining instalments of rent was premature, is correct. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Vs. Ram Ghulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All461
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. Certain of the respondents had, on the 9th May, 1891, executed a bond, whereby they hypothecated two shops and a certain share in mauza Silsanda to the father of the present appellant. On the 9th of March, 1892, the mortgagor sold the share in mauza Silsanda to other parties, and left the sum of Rs. 660 out of the consideration money with the vendees, saying that it was to be paid to the appellant in satisfaction of the bond of 1891. In March, 1893, Ram Ghulam and others, who are also arrayed as respondents in this Court, brought a pre-emption suit against Muhammad Azim Khan and his co-vendees, and obtained a decree, which directed that a deposit of Bs. 881-5-0 was to be made by the pre-emptors to the credit of Azim Khan and others aforesaid. The sum of Rs. 660 is included in the amount of Rs. 881-5-0. Ram Ghulam, on the 11th of July, 1893, had sent a post-card to Ganga Ram, informing him that Rs. 660 had been paid into Court on his account. Ganga Bam declined to ...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Dat Vs. Jadu Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR24All459
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This was a suit for sale upon a mortgage dated the 5th of November, 1895, executed by the first four defendants, namely, Jadu Rai and his three sons. The other defendants are a son of Jadu Rai and the sons of Gajadhar and Birj Lal, defendants. These persons were joined as lefendants, as they were members of a joint Hindu family with their father and grandfather, and it was sought to make the mortgaged property, which was the joint family property of all these persons, liable under the mortgage. The Courts below, relying on the ruling of this Court in Jamna v. Nain Sukh (1887) I.L.R. 9 All. 493 have exempted from liability the shares of the defendant Mul Chand and the grandsons. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal. It is true that the ruling referred to above has not in express terms been overruled; but having regard to the later Full Bench ruling in Badri Prasad v. Madan Lal (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 75 and to the ruling of the Privy Council in Nanomi Babuasin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »