Allahabad Court April 1907 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.
Husaini Khanam and anr. Vs. HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All471
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The High Court found on the facts that the plaintiff Husaini Khanam was, as she alleged, the daughter of Fateh Ali. As to the issue whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by the sixty years' rule of limitation, and as to the other points of law raised by the appeal the judgment of the Court--after discussing the documentary evidence as to the original mortgage of 1830, and its bearing upon the question whether that mortgage was redeemable within nine years or only after the expiration of the period--continued as follows:2. Ordinarily a mortgagor cannot, before the time limited for payment to the mortgagee expires, take proceedings to redeem. The reason for this is that it was the agreement of the parties that the mortgage should, during the intervening time, remain as security for the money advanced, and therefore it is not competent for either party to disturb that relation--Brown v. Cole (1844) 14 Sim., 427. Westropp, C.J., in his judgmen...
Abdul Rahman and ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors. (Representatives of Har ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All582
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiffs and the defendant in this case are inhabitants of houses which lie opposite the one to the other The defendant respondent has recently purchased the house, which was confined to one storey. He has begun to add to that house by constructing a second storey, and in the wall of the second storey which overlooks the plaintiffs' zenana he has pierced a door and two windows. The plaintiffs, alleging that by this act the defendant has invaded the right of privacy of the pardah-nashin ladies of their house, have brought this suit, praying that the defendant may, by a perpetual injunction, be restrained from opening towards the house of the plaintiffs any door or window in the northern wall of the upper storey of his house, and that a certain door frame, which he has already put up, may be removed. The defence is to the effect that before the defendant began to build, the plaintiffs' zenana was overlooked by the roof of the defendant's house, and that whatever r...
J.G. Willis and ors. Vs. Jawad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All468
Richards, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for a sum between Rs. 60 and Rs. 65 alleged to be due by the representatives of a deceased pleader to them as executors of the Will of one T.A. Martin, deceased. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and claimed a set-off amounting to about Rs. 120. The case was heard by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, who dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and decreed the whole set-off claimed by the defendants. An application was made for review of judgment and the plaintiffs paid a court fee of Rs. 4-8. The Court below, without going into the merits of the application for review of judgment, decided that the applicants should have paid a court fee to cover a sum equivalent to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs in their plaint plus the amount claimed by the defendants as set-off, No time was given to the applicants to pay this additional court fee. The application for review of judgment was made within 90 days from the date of the decre...
Emperor Vs. Mehdi Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All565
Dillon, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur recommending that the conviction and sentence passed upon one Mehdi Hasan under Section 426, Indian Penal Code, be set aside. Syed Mehdi Hasan was prosecuted before a Magistrate of the first class, Saharanpur, under Section 167 of the Municipalities Act No. I of 1900. That section punishes the wilfully letting loose any horse or other animal so as to cause, or negligently allowing any horse or other animal to cause injury, danger, alarm or annoyance to any person, or suffering any ferocious dog to be at large without a muzzle. The facts of this case are these: On the morning of October 13th, 1906, a number of cattle including Bramini bulls, cows and calves, were found straying in the Government garden. They had done a considerable amount of damage and were sent to the pound. They were the property of Mehdi Hasan, or at all events the cows and calves were his property. It is clear that this was not the first time that ...
Ashiq Ali Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All466
Richard, J.1. A decree was obtained against one Aziz, In execution of that decree Aziz, the judgment-debtor, was arrested. After some time Syed Ashiq Ali deposited a sum of money as security in Court. The terms of security were that if an application which was to be made by Aziz within a time specified to be declared insolvent was rejected on any ground whatever, the amount deposited would be paid to the decree-holder. Aziz duly made his application to be declared insolvent. Before any order could be made Aziz, the judgment-debtor, died on the 16th of April 1906. On the 19th of April the decree-holder applied to the Court that the money deposited by Syed Ashiq Ali should be paid to him. The Court made an order on the 21st of April refusing this application on the ground that the security was only given to secure the appearance of the judgment-debtor. The learned Judge had evidently in his mind the provisions of Section 336 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that when a judg...
Baldeo Parshad Vs. Uman Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1907
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.810
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage of the 11th of August, 1902, executed by the defendant Debi Din to secure a sum of Rs. 1,400. There was a previous usufructuary, mortgage of the year 1891 in existence at the date of this mortgage by which a principal sum of Rs. 1,000 was secured in favour of the defendant Baldeo Parshad. On the 20th of October, 1902, the mortgagor Debi Din sold his equity of redemption to one Girdhari Lal for a sum of Rs. 1,800 of which amount Rs. 800 was paid in cash and Rs. 1,000 was left in the hands of Girdhari Lal to satisfy the mortgage debt of Baldeo Parshad. Baldeo Parshad was a co-sharer in the village and as such was entitled to pre-empt this sale, and he sued for pre-emption and obtained a pre-emption decree. Upon preemption he paid Rs. 800 to the vendor and retained a thousand, portion of the purchase money, in satisfaction of his own prior mortgage of 1891. The plaintiff in the present litigation is the holder of, the second mortg...
Chunni Lal Vs. Bihari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All457
George Knox, J.1. This appeal is brought from an order passed under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter in dispute between the parties had been at their request referred to arbitration by the Court which was trying the suit. The arbitrator appointed by the Court returned an award, and to the award so returned objection was taken by the plaintiff in the suit under Section 521 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He set out in his objection certain facts, and upon those facts charged the arbitrator with misconduct. The learned Munsif, before whom the award was, considered the award and the objection and came to this conclusion: 'No misconduct has been shown, and the objection is only frivolous and vexatious.' The plaintiff then went in appeal, and the appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge of Aligarh. He considered afresh the alleged misconduct and found that the circumstances of the case sufficiently warranted misconduct on the part of the arbitrator as explaine...
Nur Muhammad and anr. Vs. Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All463
Aikman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents to obtain possession of certain immovable property under the following circumstances. One Param owned an undivided share in a village. The extent of his share was 9 annas 11 pies 8 chataks, that is, he held a 10 anna share all but a very small fraction. Of this share he mortgaged to Sheo Narain, defendant, appellant here, a 4 anna share. Another 2 anna share he mortgaged to one Magan Lal. The rest was free from incumbrance. Kale Khan, the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs, hold a simple money decree against Param, in execution of which he applied for attachment of a 4 anna share out of Param's estate. A 4 anna share was attached, sold and purchased by Kale Khan and Lal Khan on the 20th of April 1895 for a sum of Rs. 100. In February 1902, the plaintiffs applied under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be put into possession of the property purchased. Their application was rejected on the...
Ganesh Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Shankar Lal and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All451
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought for sale upon a mortgage executed on the 16th of March 1894, by Gaya Prasad and Musammat Jasoda Kunwar in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs respondents. Musammat Jasoda Kunwar was the widow of one Munni Lal, who died on the 8th of January 1833. They had a daughter named Anpurna Kunwar, who was married to the appellant Ram Shankar Lal. Both Jasoda Kunwar and Anpurna Kunwar died in February 1896. Jasoda Kunwar, before her death, made a will on the 9th of July 1894, in favour of Anpurna, and Aupuma, on the 13th of February 1896, made a will in favour of her husband Ram Shankar Lal. The latter is in possession of the bulk of the mortgaged property since the death of his wife Anpurna Kunwar. Gaya Prasad, one of the mortgagors, is also dead. He is represented in this suit by his son Baldeo Das, The properties comprised in the mortgage consisted of:(1) certain immovable property which admittedly had belonged to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›