Allahabad Court June 1906 Judgments
Chheda Lal Vs. Parsotam Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All76
Banerji, J.1. One Chhatarpat Singh was the owner of a 6 1/4 biswa share of zamindari. He had two sons, Kanhai and Gokul, who inherited his property in equal shares. Kanhai's sons were Makhan and Gandharp. Gokul had a son Badri who inherited his share of the property. Badri having died without issue, his half share passed to his mother, Musammat Dhan Kunwar.2. The following mortgages of the property of Chhatarpat Singh were made by the different members of his family:(1) On 1st March 1889, Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp made a simple mortgage of 6 1/4 biswas in favour of Jagannath, father of the appellant, Parsotam Narain.(2) On 8th July 1889, the same persons (Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp) made a mortgage by way of conditional sale of 4 biswas 13 biswansis in favour of one Nand Ram.(3) On 8th August 1890, Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp made a simple mortgage of 2 biswas to Ganga Ram, who, on 10th June 1902, sold his rights as mortgagee to Parsotam Narain, appellant.(4) On 16th September 1891, Gandharp...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Sabitri Prasad and ors. Vs. the Collector of Meerut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All82
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, to recover possession of property, movable and immovable, of the value of upwards of Rs. 6,00,000. The property belonged to one Nanak Chand, a Brahman residing in Meerut, who died on the 16th of October 1899. He left him surviving his widow named Musammat Champa, who died at Calcutta on the 9th of March 1900. He left no issue. The plaintiffs are the grandsons and great-grandsons of one Kishan Sahai, the paternal uncle of Nanak Chand, and claim to be entitled to his estate as reversioners. On the 20ch of January 1885 Nanak Chand executed a will, which is printed at page 72 of the respondent's book. He was then in the 23rd year of his age. By this will he left his property, subject to an allowance of Rs. 100 a month to any widow he should leave behind, in trust to the District Judge, and, if he should decline to act, to the Collector of the district. By paragraph 8 of the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mehrban HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All7
Richards, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge at Moradabad, suggesting that a commitment against the six persons named as opposite parties should be quashed. The powers of the High Court to quash a commitment are those conferred by Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, and in my opinion there is no ground for quashing the commitment in the present case. It appears that on the 20th of September 1905 one Musammat Mumtaz-un-nissa filed a complaint in the Deputy Magistrate's Court, in which she accused the persons I have mentioned above with offences under Sections 148, 337 and 458, Indian Penal Code. I may here remark, although it may not be very material, that the learned Sessions Judge is wrong in stating in his reference that the complaint was laid under Sections 365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. A considerable amount of evidence was taken, but on the 5th of December, without having issued notice to the opposite party, he dismissed the complaint. Without in any way wishi...
Tag this Judgment!Tirlok Tiwari Vs. NaraIn Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All4
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made fay the first respondent for execution of a decree obtained by Musammat Samundra Kuar against the appellant Babu Narain Das. She was the wife of the respondent Tirlok Tiwari, but left him fifteen or sixteen years ago and became a prostitute. The decree was obtained by her after she had left her husband the respondent. She having died, the respondent claims as her legal representative to execute the decree. The application was opposed by the appellant, judgment-debtor, on the ground that the unchastity and degradation of Musammat Samundra Kuar severed the tie of relationship between herself and her husband and that consequently he was not her heir and not entitled to make the application. This objection prevailed in the Court of first instance, but was overruled by the lower appellate Court. The judgment-debtor appeals and repeats the objection put forward by him in the Courts below. The first, second and third plea...
Tag this Judgment!Sundar Lal and ors. Vs. Chhitar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All1
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by several plaintiffs, who prayed that a decree might be granted them for recovery of possession by redemption of certain property set out in the schedule attached to the plaint. They also asked for mesne profits. The plaintiffs may be divided into representatives of two separate groups, and for the purposes of convenience the one group is termed in this judgment the Rupa group and the second group the Jhanda group. In this appeal we are concerned only with the Rupa group. Both the Courts below have held that their claim to recover possession by redemption is barred by reason of a suit namely, suit No. 125 of 1896, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, in which one Jhadda and others brought a similar claim for redemption affecting the property the subject-matter of the present appeal against Chhitar Mal, who in both cases was arrayed as one of the defendants. The said Chhitar Mal is mortgagee in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›