Allahabad Court June 1907 Judgments
Radha Bai Vs. Kamod Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All38
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage made on the 10th of July 1896 by the defendants, Kamod Singh, Bhagwant Singh, Ratan Singh, Hira Singh and Mangal Singh, the last two of whom were minors on that date and executed the document through their guardian, Kamod Singh. The defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are the sons of Kamod Singh and have been made parties as members of a joint Hindu family. The defendants, Bhagwant Singh, Ratan Singh, Hira Singh and Mangal Singh are the sons of Gandharp Singh, who died in 1891. Under the Jhansi Incumbered Estates Act, No. XVI of 1882 Kamod Singh and Gandharp Singh had been declared to be disqualified proprietors. One of the disabilities attaching to this declaration was that those persons were incompetent to mortgage their proprietary rights in land or any part thereof [see Section 8, Clause (c) (I)]. Under Section 28, Clause (6) of the Act, this disability extended to any person succeeding to the proprietary ...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Sahai Vs. Ashfak HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All623
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. The suit, out of which this execution appeal arises, was brought to enforce payment of a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property according to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.2. There were a number of defendants to the suit representing the mortgagors. A decree against all the defendants was obtained on the 25th August, 1900. On the 21st December, 1901, the decree was made absolute.3. One of the defendants was, however, a lady named Sakina Bibi, evidently a pardah-nashin lady, on whom personal service of the plaint in the suit presented some difficulties. The decree of the 25th August, 1900, was ex parte against this lady and she applied under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sot it aside; her application was refused, but on appeal to the High Court she succeeded, and on 11th March, 1902, the High Court set aside the decree as against her' and remanded the case. A decree on the merits was then pronounced against Sakina Bibi. She...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Vs. Bajrang Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All36
Richards, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows: In the year 1902 the plaintiff sued for redemption of certain mortgaged property. A decree was obtained on the 17th of December 1902. On appeal the amount decreed for redemption was increased, but the decree was confirmed on the 3rd of February 1903. The plaintiff paid what was due according to the decree and got possession some time in the earlier part of the year 1903. The present suit was then instituted by the plaintiff to recover certain money which he alleged was due by the defendant: he says the defendant received certain rents out of the property from August 1902 to March 1903. During the time that these alleged profits were received by the defendant, he was undoubtedly in possession of the property as mortgagee, and it is impossible to deny that the present suit is a suit for a further settlement and adjustment of accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant occupying the positions of mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid Vs. Riaz-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1907
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All32
Aikman, J.1. This is an application for the revision of a decree of the Court of Small Causes at Agra. The applicant filed a suit against the opposite party. On the 21st of December 1906 the Judge of the Court of Small Causes recorded a proceeding stating that the parties, being identified by their respective vakils, stated that they agreed to accept any decision on the case which should be given by one Babu Tika Ram, vakil, and that they agreed to pay him any reasonable fee for arbitration, the fee to be paid by them in equal shares. Thereupon the Court made a reference of the matters in dispute to the arbitration of Babu Tika Ram and fixed his fee at Rs. 45, ordering the parties each to pay in one half this sum. He fixed the time within which the arbitrator was to return his award. The following day the plaintiff stated that he had paid his half share of the fee , fixed for the arbitrator and asked that the defendant might be ordered to pay his half share. Upon this the Court ordered...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Lal and anr. Vs. Chhannu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All649
Griffin, J.1. One Jawahir Lal, the respondent, who was a pleader commencing practice at Agra, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,200 from Chhannu Lal, the present appellant, and executed two promissory notes for that amount. Chhannu Lal instituted a suit to recover the amount of the promissory notes, and at or about the same time Jawahir Lal, with his brother Asharfi Lal, who is found to be joint with Jawahir Lal, instituted a suit against Chhannu Lal for a declaration that the amount due had been paid out of the remuneration payable to them on account of their professional services to Chhannu Lal. Both suits were disposed of in one and the flame trial by the Court of first instance, which decreed Chhannu Lal's suit in part, deducting from the amount of his claim the remuneration found to be actually due to Jawahir Lal and his brother Asharfi Lal for professional services in cases in which they were engaged to appear on behalf of Chhannu Lal, Both parties appealed to the District Judge, who has d...
Tag this Judgment!Amolak Vs. Abdul Majid and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All618
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendant vendee in a suit to establish a right of pre-emption. A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not properly stamped when it was presented. The stamp on the memorandum of appeal was found to be deficient, but the deficiency was made good within the time fixed. In our opinion the case falls within the purview of Section 582(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and we repel the preliminary objection.2. The plaintiff respondent came into Court on the allegation that the defendant No. 2 had sold to the other defendant his zamindari property under a sale-deed dated the 26th of April 1904; that through fear of pre-emption a sum of Rs. 3,500 had been entered as the purchase money in the sale-deed, but that as a matter of fact the sale transaction was effected for Rs. 1,200, which the plaint stated to be the market value of the property. The plaintiff in ...
Tag this Judgment!Umrao Singh Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All615
Banerji, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff respondent is barred by the law of limitation and what is the article of the second schedule to the Limitation Act which governs the case. The suit was one for compensation and was brought under the following circumstances. Deokinandan, defendant, brought a suit for recovery of the amount of two promissory notes, alleged to have been executed in favour of Ram Narain, appellant, by one Chunni Lal, against the sons of Chunni Lal, and caused a cloth shop kept by the plaintiff to be attached before judgment on the 29th of November, 1902. Ram Narain had assigned the promissory notes to Deokinandan. The shop of the plaintiff remained under attachment till the 20th May, 1903, when the suit was dismissed. On the 17th of January, 1905, the present suit was brought for compensation for loss of profit, servants wages and rent of the shop, and for damage to the cloth locked up in the shop during the period of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Muzaffar Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Parbati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All640
George Knox, Acting, C.J. and Dillon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 28th of January 1846. We think it well to begin by explaining the array of parties. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are purchasers to the extent of a moiety of the equity of redemption of mauza Lohari from the heirs of the original mortgagor. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the heirs of the original mortgagor and are interested [in the remaining moiety. The defendants are the heirs of the mortgagees. The following genealogical tree will explain the relationships of the parties:(1) Ashraf-ul-niasa = Mahdi Ali = (2) Umda Begam. | | Ghisyawan or Ghisia, | (alleged by defendants | to have survived Mahdi | Ali). | ________________________ | | | Husain. Piari. Ashkari alias Afzal-ul-nissa. | | | ___________________________________ | | Ishtiaq Husain, Zinda Begam. plaintiff No. 3. plaintiff No. 4. ___________________________________________________________________ Sita Ram. | Sheo Lal. | (1) Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Jas Ram Vs. Umed
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All612
Aikman, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment debtor against whom a decree was passed under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the 16th of February 1906 the respondent decree-holder applied for the attachment of a house and certain trees in, execution of this decree. The property was attached on the 24th of March 1906 and sale was fixed for the 31st of May 1906, on which date the property was sold and purchased by one Hira Lal, who is apparently son of the decree-holder. On the 12th of June 1906 the judgment-debtor filed an objection to the sale on the ground that the property sold was not legally saleable in execution of the decree against him, inasmuch as the house belonged to and was occupied by him as an agriculturist and the trees stood on his occupancy holding. Both the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser were made parties to the application. The decree-holder alone resisted the application. He denied that the house was occupied by the judgment-debtor as an agricul...
Tag this Judgment!Raunak HusaIn Vs. Niadar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All608
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the respondent Raunak Husain for a declaration that a decree dated 29th June 1903 was null and void. It appears that Abbas Ali and his cousin Ahmad Husain owned certain property. On the 9th of July 1881 both of them executed a mortgage in favour of Jitta Mal in respect of a 4 biswa share in the village of Sadaruddinnagar, each hypothecating his 2 biswa share. On the 23rd of February 1900 Jitta Mal obtained a decree on the strength of that mortgage against Abbas Ali and the legal representatives of Ahmad Husain, one of whom is the plaintiff Raunak Husain, who in that suit was sued as a minor. On the 2nd of August 1889 Abbas Ali alone executed a mortgage of his 2 biswa share of Sadaruddinnagar and other property in favour of Jitta Mal. This mortgage and the decree of Jitta Mal obtained upon the prior mortgage of 1881 were assigned by him to Bhaironji Lal. On the 17th of November 1898 Abbas Ali alone exe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »