Allahabad Court November 1906 Judgments
Preonath Mukerji Vs. Bishnath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All256
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff to recover fees alleged to be due to him by the defendant in respect of the medical treatment of the late Babri Raghunath Prasad, the father of the defendant, and also fees for the treatment of the defendant. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that an earlier suit was instituted, which is said to have been in respect of the same cause of action. That was a suit for Rs. 700 for fees for seven days out of thirteen days in which the plaintiff attended at Hardwar upon Raghunath Prasad. The lower appellate Court held that the claim now put forward, which is in respect of fees for the remaining six days of the thirteen and for fees of later attendance, ought to have been put forward in the former suit, and not having been put forward in that suit, it is barred by the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that every s...
Tag this Judgment!Husaini Begam Vs. Khwaja Muhammad Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All151
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Nawab Husaini Begam, wife of Nawab Rustam Ali Khan, against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, dated the 16th of August 1904, dismissing her suit. On the occasion of the marriage of the plaintiff with her husband, Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan, the father of Rustam Ali Khan, agreed with the plaintiff's father that in consideration of the marriage he would pay to the plaintiff Rs. 500 a month as pin money, described in the document which was subsequently drawn up as 'pandan.' It appears that this annuity was paid for a considerable time, but, owing to the fact that the plaintiff refused to live with her husband, or ceased to live with him, her father-in-law thought it fit to stop the payment of the annuity. The amount claimed is for arrears due up to the end of October 1903.2. A number of defences were set up in the Court below, the most important being that the plaintiff had ceased to live with her h...
Tag this Judgment!Kastura Kunwar Vs. Gaya Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All207
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows: One Sheo Prasad Singh obtained what was admittedly equivalent to a decree against Musammat Kastura Kunwar and Musammat Jaleba Kunwar. In execution of that decree certain property of the judgment-debtors was taken in execution and sold, one Gaya Prasad being the auction purchaser. The money was duly paid and has admittedly reached the right hands. The sale was duly confirmed and a sale certificate granted. Gaya Prasad then made an application (which has led to this appeal) under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Musammat Kastura Kunwar objected to an order being made for the delivery of possession on this application. We may mention here that Gaya Prasad in his application for delivery, of possession asked that Musammat Jaleba should be substituted for him and possession given to her. The grounds of objection sought to be put forward by Musammat Kastura were that she, at some time prior to the exe...
Tag this Judgment!Dil Kunwar Vs. Udai Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All148
George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Musammat Dil Kunwar in one of the Revenue Courts of Meerut against Udai Ram and others, respondents to the present appeal. The plaintiff alleges herself to be owner and sharer in a mahal. She does not in her plaint specifically say that she is a recorded co-sharer, but in the written statement filed by the respondents I find the following: 'The plaintiff's name was entered in respect of the land in question about twenty-two years ago, but since then the plaintiff has not at all come in possession of any sort up to this moment.' This may fairly be interpreted as meaning that the plaintiff is recorded as having proprietary right in the mahal. The Court of first instance gave the appellant a decree for part only of the profits claimed. In appeal the Court below held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by lapse of time. Exception was taken to this finding in the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court, vide plea No. 1, an...
Tag this Judgment!Lalman Vs. Mohar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All205
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for sale of mortgaged property. It is admitted in the plaint that the mortgaged property with other property is liable to a charge for maintenance in favour of Musammat Gulabi, namely, to the payment to her of Rs. 40 per mensem. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the greater part of the claim on the ground that the property comprised in the mortgage, which was subject to the charge for maintenance, could not be sold in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mata Din Kasodhan v. Kazim Husain (1891) I.L.R., 13 All., 432. In his judgment the learned Judge treated the plaintiff as in the position of a subsequent mortgagee and held that, without redeeming what he described as the mortgage of Musammat Gulabi, the Court could not direct the sale of the property. It appears to us that he was quite in error in treating Musammat Gulabi as a mortgagee. She has only a ch...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Kuri and ors. Vs. Baldeo Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All145
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. In this appeal the sole question argued before us on behalf of the appellants touches the question of the validity of foreclosure proceedings taken under Section 8 of Regulation XVII of 1806. That section directs that the Judge on receiving a written petition from a mortgagee or holder of a deed of conditional sale for the foreclosure of a mortgage shall cause the mortgagor or his legal representative to be furnished with a copy of the petition and shall at the same time 'notify to him by a parwanah under his seal and official signature' that if he shall not redeem the property mortgaged in the manner provided by the preceding section within one year from the date of the notification, the mortgage will be finally foreclosed and the conditional sale will become conclusive. The appellants contend that the requirements of this section were not complied with, inasmuch as the parwanah which was issued by the Judge to the mortgagors, though it bor...
Tag this Judgment!Kaisar Zamani Begam Vs. Shiam Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All143
Knox and Richards, JJ.1. In this case the appellant as representative of one Muhammad Husain had a decree originally obtained against one Lalji Mal. Certain property was attached and directed to be sold. The present respondent objected that the property had become vested in her and was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The objection was allowed and the decree-holder instituted a suit for a declaration that the property was liable to sale in execution of the decree. The Court of first instance decreed this suit and the decree-holder proceeded to sell and did sell the property. The defendant, however, appealed, and on appeal the decree of the Court of first instance was set aside, and the respondent in this suit established her right to the property. She now seeks to be restored to the property, which admittedly was sold in execution of the decree of the Court of first instance which has been set aside on appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge has treated the application a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Khushali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All141
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government from an original order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. Khushali and Jwala were sent up by the Police upon a charge of cheating, in that they passed to certain persons as genuine gold mohars of the time of Shahjahan silver rupees of that reign which had been gilt or in some way covered over with gold. The Magistrate, however, committed the accused to the Court of Session for trial for an offence punishable under Section 239 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, for fraudulently delivering counterfeit coin with the knowledge that it was so. In our opinion, looking to the definition of the word 'coin' as given in Section 230 of the Indian Penal Code, a gold mohar of the reign of Shahjahan cannot be deemed to be a coin, inasmuch as it is not used for the time being as money. The same, view was taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Regina v. Bapu Yadav and Rama Tulshiram (1874) 11 Bom. H.C. Rep.,...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sughar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All138
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal of two persons namely Singhand Nethi, who, were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi of the offence of dacoity punishable under, Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The dacoity in respect of which these persons were convicted took place on the 10th of March 1905. The only evidence to connect the appellants with the crime lay in the fact that about six months after the date of the dacoity, namely in September 1905, certain ornaments which were proved to have been, carried away in the dacoity were found in the house of Sughar Singh, and other ornaments were found in an empty house adjoining the house of Nethi. The ornaments found in the house of Sughar Singh consisted of a pair of bangles and a frontlet, and in the empty house adjoining the house of Nethi a pair of earrings and a necklet were also found. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants, of dacoity holding that he was justified under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Ghanshiam Lalji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All33
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought upon six hundis drawn by the defendant (appellant) upon himself in favour of the plaintiff (respondent). The hundis were silent as to interest; but there was a collateral agreement, embodied in written documents, that the hundis should bear interest at a rate equivalent to 30 per cent. per annum. And it has been held that the dealing with interest by a collateral agreement, and not on the face of the hundis, was in accordance with the custom prevailing in the district, and amongst the class, affected by this suit.2. The contention of the appellant was that, notwithstanding the agreement of the parties, the respondent's right to interest was restricted to 6 per cent. by Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, XXVI of 1881. Both the Courts in India rejected this contention, and, their Lordships think, rightly.3. The section says:When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount du...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›