Allahabad Court December 1906 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gaya DIn and ors. Vs. Kashi Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All163
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgagor, Kashi Gir was co-sharer in a village, and being desirous of pre-empting a sale of another share in the same village, required for that purpose an advance of money. He applied to the plaintiffs appellants for a loan of Rs. 3,000, and obtained this loan on the security of a mortgage on the 1st of March 1895. In this mortgage Kashi Gir hypothecated shares in two villages of which he was already owner and the document contained the following provision: 'Should I succeed in the pre-emption suit (that is, the suit which he had brought to pre-empt the share to which we have referred) and get possession of the 8 anna zamindari share sold, bearing a jama of Rs. 145 and situate, etc., etc., it shall also be considered to be pledged and hypothecated as security for this debt.' Then follows an undertaking on the part of the mortgagor not to transfer or mortgage the share so sought t...
Beni Pande and ors. Vs. Raja Kausal Kishore Prasad Mal Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All160
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants for a declaration that the property claimed was their abadhari property and was heritable and transferable, and that they were not liable to ejectment as ordinary lessees for a fixed period. Before the suit was brought the respondent sued the present plaintiffs in the Revenue Court for their ejectment from the land in question on the ground that they were his tenants holding under an expired lease. The present plaintiffs set up the defence that they were not the tenants of the respondent, but were subordinate proprietors. They thus raised a question of title. On this question being raised, it was open to the Revenue Court under the provisions of Section 199 of Act No. II of 1901 to adopt one of the two courses mentioned in that section. It could either require the defendants to institute a suit in the Civil Court for the determination of the question of title, or determine such question itself. It chos...
Sundar Lal and ors. Vs. Chhitar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All215
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises 'out of a suit for redemption which was brought by the plaintiffs appellants and a number of other parties who claim to be entitled to a share in a village named Alaula, comprising an area of 157-67 acres. The claim of the plaintiffs appellants was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by a decision in a suit brought by their father, the defendant Jhadda, in respect of the same cause of action. When the case came before us for hearing we pointed out that the decision of the suit in which Jhadda was the claimant did not operate as res judicata against his sons, the present appellants, and we therefore held that the Courts below were in error as to this. We remanded several issues to the lower appellate Court for determination under Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have the finding upon these issues before us.2. It has been found that, of the property of which possession was claimed in the suit,17 1/15 ...
Banwari Lal and anr. Vs. Niadar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All158
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought by the plaintiffs, who are co-sharers in the village, against other co-sharers under chapter XI of the Tenancy Act, 1901. The first plea raised in answer to the claim was that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title had not received profits within 12 years preceding the date of the suit, and that the claim was time barred. The Assistant Collector overruled this plea and decreed a part of the claim against two of the defendants. One of these appealed, and on his appeal the learned Additional Judge set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal. The learned Judge observes: 'It was for the plaintiffs to show that they or their predecessors had within twelve years from the institution of the suit collected any profits,' and refers to two rulings. Those rulings were anterior to the passing of the Tenancy Act, 1901. We may also invite his...
Muhammad Abdul Karim Vs. Hashmat-un-nissa Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All155
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal has occupied a considerable time. The learned Counsel for the respective parties have opened up before us and discussed carefully all the points which could be urged on behalf of their clients. The suit was one for specific performance of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the defendant Musammat Hashmat-unnissa Begam and Musammat Zainab-un-nissa Begam and the plaintiff on the 27th of July 1902. In the alternative, the plaintiff prays for a declaration that he is entitled to pre-empt a mortgage executed after the alleged agreement for purchase, on the 17th of September 1902. The plaintiff's case is as follows: He alleges that on the 27th of July 1902 Musammat Hashmatun-nissa Begam along with Musammat Zainab-un-nissa Begam her sister, entered into an agreement with him for the sale of 2 biswas of the village of Sheikhpur. The share which belonged to Hashmat-un-nissa was attached in execution of a decree and in c...
Sham Lal Vs. Bindo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All210
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Moradabad under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Judge has appointed the father as guardian of the person of a Hindu child and has directed that the minor, who is a girl nearly 10 years of ago, be removed from the custody of her maternal grandmother and be made over to the custody of her father. It is an admitted fact that, until this order was passed the girl has been, since the death of her mother, for a period of five years continuously residing with and has been cared for by the maternal grandmother. There is no suggestion that the maternal grandmother is in any way unfit to continue to be a guardian of the ward. She is a Hindu lady in good circumstances, and it is obvious that if she had not cared for the child she would not have kept the minor so long under her charge. It is true that there is nothing against the father, but again it is an admitted fact that he has married a second tim...
Puran Chand Vs. Sheodat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All212
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. We have heard all that the learned vakil who appears for the appellant could say on behalf of his client, and we find ourselves in accord with what was laid down by the Subordinate Judge. We were referred to the case of Radha Raman Shaha v. Pran Nath Roy (1901) I.L.R., 28 Calc., 475 and also to the case of Khagendra Nath Mahata v. Pran Nath Roy (1902) I.L.R., 29 Calc., 395, but in our opinion the facts of this case are, as the learned Judge also points out, distinct from the facts of those cases. In the Calcutta cases there were specific allegations that the decree had been obtained by fraud and the execution proceedings which followed were similarly tainted with fraud. In the case out of which this appeal has arisen the only real fraud alleged is connected with the non-service of summons. This has already been fully gone into and decided against the appellant in the application which he filed under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We dismiss ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›