Allahabad Court December 1906 Judgments
Muhammad Ali Khan Vs. Mulchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All235
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench. It involves an important question arising out of the section of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with commissions to make partition. The appellants contended in the Courts below that the allotment of shares by one commissioner is contrary to the provisions of Section 396 and is illegal. This section, it is said, contemplates the appointment of more than one commissioner and renders it compulsory on the Court to appoint more than one. Chapter XXV of the Code deals with four classes of commissions, namely:(a) Commissions to examine witnesses;(b) Commissions for local investigations; (c) Commissions to examine accounts and(d) Commissions to make partitions.2. In the case of commissions to examine witnesses, Section 385 expressly provides that the commission may be issued to any person whom the Court thinks fit to execute the same. In the case of commissions for local investigations likewise the Court may issue a commis...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup Vs. Ram Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All239
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur dismissing the plaintiff's suit by which he sought to obtain certain declarations.2. The plaintiff Ram Sarup is grandson of one Balak Ram, deceased, by his daughter Musammat Ram Piari, and the defendants are Musammat Ram Dei. widow of Bahadur Lal, last surviving son of Balak Ram, Musammat Kausila, widow of a predeceased son, and Kanhai Lal, own brother of the appellant. He is a nominal defendant.3. Balak Ram left three sons and three daughters. None of the sons had male issue, but Bahadur Lal, husband of the defendant Ram Dei, loft by her a daughter Kirpa Dei who died in 1896. There has been some previous litigation in this family, in the course of which it has been held in this Court that the family was joint at the death of Bahadur Lal; that as he was the last full owner of the joint property, the defendant Musammat Ram Dei took a widow's life interest in it, ...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat and ors. Vs. Munshi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All262
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The question raised in this appeal appears to us to be concluded by authority. It is this--whether, when the integrity of a mortgage has been broken up upon the purchase by the mortgagees of the equity of redemption in a portion of the mortgaged property, one of several mortgagors is entitled to redeem the remainder of the mortgaged property against the wish of the mortgagees, or is his right of redemption confined to his share of the property? In the case of Nawab Azimut Ali Khan v. Jowahir Sing (1870) 13 Mco, I.A., 404 their Lordships of the Privy Council held that co-mortgagors, who were entitled to a portion of mortgaged property, could not redeem against the will of the mortgagee any portion of the mortgaged property save their own village. They held that the mortgagors could not acquire the interest of the mortgagee in other parts of the mortgaged property against the will of the mortgagee. They say in the course of their judgment that...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Prasad and ors. Vs. Jamna Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All233
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on several mortgages, but the only one with which we are concerned is a mortgage of the 4th of September, 1894. By that mortgage 16 villages were hypothecated in favour of the plaintiffs to secure a sum of Rs. 32,000. There was a prior mortgage in existence at the date of this mortgage, namely, a mortgage of the 15th of December 1888, in favour of the same mortgagees. A suit was brought on foot of this mortgage, and a decree for sale was passed thereon, in execution of which 10 out of the 16 villages were sold and purchased by the plaintiffs, the mortgagees. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs on the 23rd of April 1904, for sale of the remaining six villages to satisfy the later mortgage of the 4th of September 1894. The learned (Subordinate Judge has given a decree for the sale of these villages, but decided that they were not liable to satisfy the whole of the...
Tag this Judgment!Chunni Lal and Ors. Vs. the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All228
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal is connected with Second Appeal No. 595 of 1904. The litigation arose under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs appellants, who carry on a grocery business at Rawatpara, Agra, under the style of Govind Ram Har Prasad, desiring to obtain chillies from Bezwada, inquired of the rate for the carriage of chillies per wagon load from Bezwada to Agra Fort and Agra Cantonment Stations from the station master at the Bezwada station on His Highness the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway, and were informed by him by letter, dated the 13th of September 1902, that the rate was Rs. 270 per wagon load. The plaintiffs also made the same inquiry from the station master at the Agra Cantonment Station and obtained the same information. Acting upon this information they ordered two wagon loads of chillies from Bezwada and consigned the same to Agra Fort Station, obtaining two railway receipts, in each of which the freight at the rate quoted to them, viz., Rs. 270 is ...
Tag this Judgment!Pirbhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Baldeo Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All260
George Knox, J.1. The finding to the issue sent down is to the effect that the property mortgaged is an occupancy holding of which the mortgagor was not the tenant at the date of the last settlement, nor is at the present day. The result is that the appellant finds 'himself with the property mortgaged to him, which, so far as he is, conceded, is non-existent and which he certainly cannot bring to sale. The learned vakil who appears for the appellant cannot refer me to any ruling which goes so far as to say that an order may be granted under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, where no property has been put to sale because from no fault of the mortgagee the property mortgaged to him cannot be brought to sale. The remedy given by Section 90 is an extraordinary remedy and must, therefore, be applied with great care and jealousy. In the present case it does seem a hardship that the mortgagee is deprived of his security from no fault of his own, and is now barred from enforcing a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan Vs. Husaini Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All222
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff is the son of Khwaja Muhammad Khan, a Nawab of Dholepur, and was married to the defendant Husaini Begam, who is the daughter of a wealthy resident of Moradabad, now deceased, on the 2nd of November 1877. At the time of the marriage the plaintiff's father agreed to give the defendant Rs. 500 a month for pin-money. The plaintiff and the defendant lived together from the year 1883 up to the year 1896, when she left her husband and went to her father's house on the ground, as she alleges, of her husband's misconduct. She subsequently sued her father-in-law for arrears of the monthly annuity, agreed to be paid to her, up to 1901, and obtained a decree in the terms of a compromise. Her father-in-law failing to pay the annuity after the date of this decree, a suit was instituted by the defendant again...
Tag this Judgment!Gajrajmati TeoraIn and ors. Vs. Akbar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All196
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and dismissing, with costs, a regular suit brought for the purpose of annulling a sale in execution proceedings.2. The sale was held under a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur by the Collector of Basti. The sale proclamation was duly issued. The sale was fixed for the 20th of February 1897. It was held on the 23rd, but before the Collector had finished the sales listed for the 20th.3. It appears that an order was made ex parte on the 11th of February 1897 by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur staying the sale. On the 16th of February the Collector of Basti, in obedience to this order, struck the proceedings off the pending file. However, on the 22nd, in consequence of notice received from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, from which it appeared that the order staying the sale had been set aside, the case was then brought forward, as the Collector n...
Tag this Judgment!Padam Lal Vs. Tek Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All217
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Padam Lal to obtain a declaration that a 4 anna share in the village of Muhana in the district of Cawnpore is not saleable in execution of a decree obtained by the defendant Kunwar Tek Singh against the defendant Musammat Rukmin Kunwar. The entire village of Muhana belonged to the late Gayendra Narain, husband of Kadam Kunwar. He left his second wife Musammat Kadam Kunwar and two daughters by her, namely, Musammat Janki Kunwar and Musammat Rukmin Kunwar, and also a daughter, Musammat Tulshi Kunwar, by his first wife him surviving. The plaintiff Padam Kunwar is son of Rukmin Kunwar. Gayendra Narain before his death, namely, on the 31st of July 1866, executed a will by which he purported to dispose of the village of Muhana. In the will ho recites his title to the village in question and states that he has two heirs to that village, one his wife and the other his daughter: and then he de...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Lal and ors. Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All176
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This appeal is connected with F.A. No. 314 of 1903 and several other appeals against decrees passed against the appellant and other defendants whereby the appellant is made personally liable for the amount of the decrees, The appellant and other members of his family constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family, owning as such an ancestral trading and banking firm at Cawnpore and Lucknow, the firm at Cawnpore being known by the style of Jagat Nath Thanti Mal and that at Lucknow by the style of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi. In our judgment delivered on the 28th of March 1906 in First Appeal No. 314 the circumstances under which the indebtedness arose are fully stated. The suit which has, given rise to this appeal is one for recovery of a debt amounting to over Rs. 11,000, representing the balance due in respect of a number of hundis which were drawn by the defendant's firm on the plaintiff' firm at Cawnpore styled Moti Lal, Fateh Lal. The defence of the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »