Allahabad Court January 1907 Judgments
Daulat Ram Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All310
Banerji, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the pregnancy of his wife is a bar to the right of a Hindu to adopt a son. The suit in which this question has arisen was brought by the appellant for a declaration that the respondent Ram Lal was not the adopted son of one Murli. The Court below has found that Murli did adopt Ram Lal, but it seems to be of opinion that at the time of adoption Murli's wife was pregnant. It has, however, held that the existence of pregnancy, did not invalidate the adoption. The learned vakil for the appellant contends that this view is erroneous and in support of his contention has referred to an old ruling of the Madras Sudder Court in Narayana Reddi v. Vardachala Reddi M.S.D., 1859, 97 in which it was held that an adoption is invalid if at the time of the adoption the adopter's wife is pregnant. This ruling was considered by that Court in the later case of Nagabhushanam v. Seshammagaru (1881) I.L.R., 3 Mad., 180 and was dissented from. The learne...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Dihal Sahu Vs. Bhawani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All348
John Stanley, C.J. and William burkitt, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under the following circumstances. The defendant Musammat Bhawani executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff of certain property. She subsequently sued for redemption and obtained a decree on the 23rd of September 1901. She did not put the decree into execution, but took possession of the mortgaged property without the intervention of the Court on the day after the decree was passed. An appeal against the decree was preferred and the decree was reversed. On second appeal to the High Court the decree of. the lower appellate Court was affirmed. Thereupon the plaintiff appellant before us instituted a suit for recovery of the mortgaged property of which Musammat Bhawani had taken possession without the intervention of the Court. In the Court of first instance the plaintiff, to meet the defendant's objection that the claim was barred by Sections 244 and 583 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asked the Court, in th...
Tag this Judgment!Hashmat Ali Vs. Muhammad Umar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All308
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the lower appellate Court remanding the case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for further trial. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who had acquired a one-fifth share in a house, for partition of the share which he had acquired. both the plaintiff and the defendants (who are admittedly the 'Owners of the remaining four-fifths of the house), are Muhammadans. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff the relief prayed for, and held that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit given by Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, inasmuch as the property to be partitioned was not 'a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family.' The lower appellate Court held that Section 4 did apply in the case of Muhammadans, and overruling the Court of first instance upon the preliminary point, sent the case back for trial as already stated. It is hero contended that Section 4 cannot apply excep...
Tag this Judgment!Balkishan Das Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All303
Richards, J.1. This was a suit to enforce a mortgage bond. It appears that the defendant executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff to secure a sum of Rs. 500 with interest which amounted to Rs. 37-8-0 per cent per annum with six-monthly rests. Furthermore the bond contained a stipulation that the defendant borrower should not be empowered to pay the money within three years, and if he did pay within three years, he should nevertheless be obliged to pay three years' interest at the rate already mentioned. The amount claimed by the plaintiff is the sum of Rs. 3,897-1-0. The defence was an allegation that at the time of the loan the defendant had fallen into dissolute habits, that his father had refused to provide him with any money and that the bargain he had entered into was a hard and unconscionable bargain, which should not be enforced against him. The Court of first instance set forth the facts that I have already mentioned, and says as follows: 'It was under such circumstances that...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Ram Vs. Masih Ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All295
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is concerned with the effect upon a custom of preemption prevailing in a village of a perfect partition of the village. In the village of Kiyampur Bheria, situate in the district of Etah, the following right of pre-emption arising by custom prevailed was recorded in the wajib-ul-arz, namely: 'If any share-holder wishes to transfer his share by mortgage or sale, he shall do so first to the co-sharers of the village, and if any stranger causes the price of the share to be entered in the document in excess of the real price in order to deprive the co-sharers of the village of their right, the proper price shall be determined by arbitration, or by the officer for the time being.' The village at the time of this wajib-ul-arz consisted of one undivided mahal, but it was, before the sale which has given rise to this litigation, divided by perfect partition into three mahals. The plaintiff Gobind Ram is the owner...
Tag this Judgment!Dambar Singh and anr. Vs. Jawitri Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All292
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, is closely connected with First Appeal No. 231 of 1904, in which we have delivered judgment to-day. In that case it will be remembered that one Beni Singh and his father, Jai Singh, had some litigation which eventually ended in a partition suit, by which Beni Singh took one-half of the property and his father, Jai Singh, remained in possession of the remainder. Beni Singh's wife was one Jawitri Kunwar. This suit is to recover possession of certain villages which were conveyed by Beni Singh to Musammat Jawitri Kunwar by a sale-deed of the 22nd of January 1886. It is contended that Beni Singh had no title whatever to make that conveyance. This point was not raised in the Court below. Most of the villages conveyed by that sale-deed came to Jai Singh after the partition between him and his son, Beni, on the successive deaths of two widows, Musammat Tulsha and Musammat Khushalo in 1881 and 1883. On th...
Tag this Judgment!Pitam Singh Vs. Tota Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All301
Knox and Richards, JJ.1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken by the appellant, who is the transferee of Musammat Gomti, the original decree-holder. The decree was transferred to Pitam Singh on the 12th of January 1901, and on the 19th of March 1902, Pitam Singh, admittedly within time, applied to the Court) executing the decree that his name might be substituted for the name of Musammat Gomti. Notice in writing of this application was by the Court's order sent to the various judgment-debtors. One of them, Pulandar Singh, could not be found, and on the 31st of May 1902 Pitam Singh applied to the Court for further time, stating that he could not find the address of Pulandar Singh. The decree will be barred unless it be held that both these applications are steps in aid of execution within the moaning of Clause (4) of Article 179 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The respondent contends that inasmuch as the application of the 19th of March...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Board of Najibabad Vs. Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All346
George Knox and Richards, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Municipal Board of Najibabad through the Chairman of the Board against one Sheo Narain, who, according to the allegations made in the plaint, had entered into a contract for storing and consolidating kankar with the Municipal Board. The plaint states that the respondent had not carried out the terms of the contract, which caused loss to the Board, hence the suit for damages. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. The respondent before us appealed to the lower appellate Court. There were no less than eighteen grounds in the memorandum of appeal, but the lower appellate Court decided the appeal upon, a preliminary point which is neither contained in, nor covered by, the written statement of the respondent or the memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The point seems to have been suggested by a ruling of this Court in Radha Kishan Das v. The Municipal Board of Benares Weekly Notes, 1905, p,...
Tag this Judgment!Dammar Singh and anr. Vs. Pirbhu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All290
Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We think that the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. There is no doubt that in appointing the mother of the minors as their guardian ad litem when there was already a certificated guardian, the Court acted in violation of the provisions of Section 443 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that where an authority competent to appoint a guardian was appointed or declared a guardian or guardians of the person or property or both of the minor, the Court shall appoint him guardian ad litem, unless it considers for reasons to be recorded by it that some other person ought to be so appointed. It does not appear in this case that the Court did consider that any person other than the certificated guardian ought to be appointed, for it is admitted that no reasons for the appointment of the mother as guardian were given in the order passed by the Court appointing her. In fact it would seem that the Court was ignorant...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Singh Vs. Mukhta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All287
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court affirming the decision of the District Judge, which upheld the decree of an Assistant Collector of Etawah. The suit is one by the plaintiff, a co-sharer in the village, to recover his share of the profits of the village from the two lambardars, Mukhta Prasad and Musammat Mohan Kunwar, for the years 1309 to 1310 fasli. The plaintiff owns about 112th of the village and is entitled to that proportion of the profits of the village. The defence set up was that the plaintiff was wrong in suing both the defendants jointly, and that he should have sued each one of them separately for the amount of the profits which might have been collected respectively by each. Now as to that matter our learned brother remarks: 'I would have thought that the office of lambardar, even though exercised by several persons, was a joint office and that the fact that each made separate collections was a m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »