Allahabad Court April 1907 Judgments
Girraj Singh and ors. Vs. Mul Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All627
Aikman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit of a somewhat peculiar nature. In the Bulandshahr district there lived one Rao Umrao Singh who owned large estates. He had in his employ one Mul Chand, an old and trusted servant, who had been in his service since the Mutiny, In 1870, Mul Chand wished to purchase some property, and for that purpose he applied to Udai Ram, a money-lender of the Meerut district, for a loan. As Mul Chand was not a resident of those parts and had no property, Udai Ram refused to lend him the money, but offered to let him have the sum he wanted, namely, Rs. 2,000, if his master, Umrao Singh, stood security for him.2. Mul Chand accordingly applied to Rao Umrao Singh, and the latter, at Mul Chand's request, executed a bond for Rs. 2,000 in favour of Udai Ram and his father. This bond is printed at page 12 of appellant's book in F.A. No. 236 of 1897. It bears date the 3rd of November 1870, and begins as follows: 'I Rao Umrao Singh, declare as follows: I have borrow...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Krishna NaraIn and anr. Vs. Khunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All487
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This case is a sequel in some respects to the case of the same plaintiffs appellants v. Abdul Qayyum decided by this Bench in April 1903, which will be found reported at I.L.R., 25 All., 546. In that case the plaintiffs sued to set aside an alienation made by their mother Rani Mewa Kunwar to her father-in-law under circumstances detailed fully in that judgment. We held in it that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed. In that case we also detailed at length (pp. 558 et seqq of the report) the conflicting claims made by Rani Chhatar Kunwar and her sister Rani Mewa Kunwar on one side, and Raja Khairati Lal on the other to the estate of Raja Ratan Singh, who after his conversion was known by a Muhammadan name. The judgment then sets forth the compromise (p. 577 of the report) made between the opposing claimants, how the sister's took 8 1/2 annas between them, while Khairati Lal got 7 1/2 annas of the disputed estate. In that suit the villages...
Tag this Judgment!Achhaibar Dube Vs. Tapasi Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All557
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are somewhat peculiar. Tapasi Dube and Janki Dube obtained a joint decree for sale of certain mortgaged property. It appears that one of the decree-holders, Tapasi Dube, obtained leave to bid at the sale and he became the auction purchaser at the price of Rs. 950, which was the exact amount of the decree, that is, debt, interest and costs. He had taken the most active, if not the entire, part in the litigation which resulted in the decree in favour of himself and his co-decree-holder. He was allowed by the Court to take credit as against the purchase money for the amount of the decree, and consequently no money whatever was paid. When he applied for execution prior to his obtaining leave to bid, the application was made on behalf of himself and Janki Dube his co-decree-holder. Although there is no clear finding, it would appear that no part of the decretal money was ever paid by Tapasi Dube to Janki Dube. According to the allegat...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Kazim Vs. Mian Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All554
George Knox, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are as follows: The defendant first party had been granted a lease for seven years by the defendant second party over certain land, the subject matter of the present appeal. The lease was granted on the 24th July 1901. The defendant second party ceased to hold the position of lambardar before the present suit was brought and his successor, the plaintiff, here the appellant, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to have the lease cancelled. He alleged that the lease had been given out of sheer dishonesty and in order to cause loss to pattidars, and is one of several leases, which had been given by the late lambardar. In defence fraud was denied. It was pleaded that the lease was lawfully, executed for consideration, and that before the execution of the lease the lessee had cultivated the land on payment of rent at 8 annas a bigha. The lease set out the annual rental of the land to be Rs. 3 a bigha. The Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Sobha Ram Vs. Ran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All544
William Burkitt, J.1. This and the connected Appeal No. 70 of 1905 are cross appeals from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, dated December 16th, 1904, by which he partially allowed and partially dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Sobha Ram against the defendant Ran Singh and others.2. It appears that one Badan Singh, father of the first three defendants and grandfather of the other four, had in July 1882 mortgaged certain property to Khetal Das and another. On the 24th August 1893 Badan Singh mortgaged the same property to Balak Ram, father of the plaintiff Sobha Ram, to secure the sum of Rs. 2,000, Subsequently Balak Ram obtained a decree, by which, under the direction, of the Court, he, by paying Rs. 1,858-3-3, redeemed the prior mortgage of Khetal Das and so under the provisions of Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act acquired the position of first mortgagee on paying the Rs. 1,858-3-3 payment of which is admitted.3. Balak Ram then instituted a suit against ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Vs. Banarsi Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All495
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the property of a joint Hindu family, the plaintiff claiming to be entitled upon partition to one-third of the property. One-fifth only was awarded to him and hence the appeal. The following genealogical tree will show the relationship of the parties: HARJAS RAI. _____________________|__________________ | | Gulab Rai. Nahar Singh Musammat Baino, defendant. | _________________________________________________|_______ | | | | |Banarsi Das, Ajudhia Ganeshi Kedar Badri Das, defendant Musam- Lal, dead, Nath defendant. | mat Musammat | | Chamaili. Kishan Dei. | | | | ______|_________Mul Chand, defendant, said | | ot have been adopted by Manohar Mitra Sen dead, Musammat Kishan Dei, Lal, Musammat widow of Ganeshi Lal, plaintiff. Sharbati, on 2nd November 1902. dead.2. The main question in dispute is whether or not Mul Chand, the son of the defendant Banarsi Das, was validly adopted by his aunt Musamma...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Dei Vs. Badam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All484
Richards, J.1. So far as the present appeal is concerned the only claim I have to deal with is the claim of Ganga Dei to an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her cutting down and removing certain trees growing on the holdings of the defendants. Both sides have expressly stated that this is the only question In the present appeal. Ganga Dei is the zamindar. The defendants are tenants either occupancy or non-occupancy. The plaintiff has given no special evidence from which the existence of a custom or contract enabling her to enter the holdings and cut down and remove the trees can be inferred. On the other hand the defendants have failed to establish any proprietary right in the trees. The learned advocate for the defendants has argued the case on their behalf on the basis that, admitting the property in the trees to belong to the plaintiff, and admitting that the defendants have no right to cut down and remove the timber, nevertheless the plaintiff has not, du...
Tag this Judgment!Albert Puech Vs. Najm-ul-dIn Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All584
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal by a defendant against a decree passed upon an award, and is based on the contention that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to consider the award and give judgment in accordance with it until the period for applying to set aside the award prescribed by Article 158 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act, coupled with Section 12 of the same Act, had expired. The suit was for an account of partnership dealings, and was referred to arbitration on the 20th of June 1905. On the 14th of November 1905, an award was made and the 25th of November was fixed for the disposal of the case, of which fact both parties were informed on the 14th of November. The defendant appellant applied for a copy of the award on the 23rd of November, but had not obtained the copy when the case came on for disposal on the 25th. He applied for an adjournment of the hearing, but his application was refused, and, despite the provisions of Section 522 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Singh and ors. Vs. Madsudan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All481
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of the 28th of July 1887. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. The mortgagors were Musammat Parbati and Musammat Khem Kunwar, and the mortgagee is the defendant respondent Madsudan. On the 20th of May 1901, the mortgagors obtained a decree for redemption of the mortgaged property subject to the payment within three months of a sum of Rs. 2,555. The decree directed that if the amount found to be due was not paid within the time prescribed, the plaintiffs' right to redemption would be extinguished. The amount due was paid within the three months and possession of the property was restored to the mortgagors; but on appeal the decree of the Court below was modified, it being found that a sum of Rs. 3,160-10-0, and not merely Rs. 2,555, was due on foot of the mortgage. This sum was ordered to be paid on or before the 5th of March 1902, and in all other re...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Ram Vs. Dost Muhammad Khan and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All537
John Stanley, C.J.1. The facts of this case may be shortly summarized. One Rahmat-ullah executed a mortgage in favour of Ram Charan Das on the 15th of April 1895 purporting to hypothecate in it the entire of a certain, house. The mortgagee subsequently instituted a suit to realise the amount of the mortgage, but, having ascertained that the mortgagor was only entitled to mortgage a 716 share of the house, he confined his claim to that share and obtained a decree for sale on the 29th of June 1898 This decree was on the 7th of April 1899 transferred to the plaintiff Lala Manni Ram. Musammat Hafizan Bibi, a sister of the mortgagor, was entitled to a share in the house in question, and she on the 21st of January 1899 instituted a suit in form pauperis against her brother to have the mortgage set aside so far as regards her share in the house. On the 29th of July. 1899 a decree was granted to her which directed that the court fee should be recovered from Rahmat-ullah. In execution of that d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »