Allahabad Court January 1908 Judgments
Abdul Latif Khan and anr. Vs. Firozi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All143
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. The appellant is a lady residing in the Rampur State, that is, oat of British India. She brought a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Moradabad to recover a sum of money on account of her dower. The suit was based on a judgment which she had obtained from a Court in Rampur against her husband, the respondent Abdul Latif Khan. Her suit was dismissed. She appealed. On the application, of the respondent, she was on the 3rd of November 1906 ordered by the appellate Court to furnish security for he appeal under costs under the provisions of Section 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 15th of December 1906 was the time fixed within which the security had to be furnished. The appellant did not furnish the security within that time. On the 19th of December 1906, she asked for an extension of time within which to file the security. Although the time had expired, the learned Judge had authority to extend the time, vide decision of the Privy Council in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All146
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand made by the learned Additional Judge of Aligarh in execution proceedings. The respondent Umrao Singh on the 13th of November 1895 mortgaged certain property to one Kishan Lal. The mortgagee brought a suit against the respondent. In that suit he abandoned his rights under the mortgage and obtained a simple money decree on the 25th of March 1901. This decree he assigned to the present appellant, who applied on the 22nd of November 1902 for attachment and sale of the property which had been mortgaged to his assignor. The property was attached and a proclamation of sale issued under Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 18th of April 1903 the judgment-debtor asked for postponement of the sale in order that he might raise the amount of the decree. This application was refused. On the 20th of July 1903 the property was sold and purchased by the present appellant. On the 19th of August 1903 the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshri Prasad Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All137
Aikman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Allahabad appointing a guardian of the person and property of a minor named Kedar Nath under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appellant is the father-in-law of the minor. The respondent, who was appointed guardian by the learned Judge, is the minor's elder brother. Each of the parties to this appeal claimed to be appointed guardian. It appears that on the joint application of the parties the question as to who should be appointed guardian was referred to the arbitration of Kunwar Bharat Singh, a gentleman against whom no imputation whatever is made. It appears from the order of the learned Judge that he decided the question as to who should be the guardian solely on the award of the arbitrator. In appeal here it is contended that under Act No. VIII of 1890 the District Judge was not competent to refer to an arbitrator the question as to who should be appointed guardian. In my opinion t...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Rao Vs. Janki Bai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All141
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application to execute a decree, dated the 9th of June 1893, which was passed in favour of the respondents Musammat Janki Bai and Musammat Lachmi Bai against six persons, namely, Atma Ram, Sita Ram, Bal Kishen, Raghunath, Krishan and Madho Rao. The appellant here is the son of the last-named judgment-debtor. The decree was for the sum of Rs. 5,091-9-0 and for costs and interest. It appears that all the judgment-debtors save Madho Rao took the benefit of the Bundelkhand Encumbered Estates Act, 1908. The usual notification was issued calling upon creditors to submit their claims. The respondents decree-holders put in their claim against the applicants, but, unfortunately for themselves, they did not put forward their claim within the time required by the Act, and the Special Judge refused to consider it. Now there is in the Act a very stringent provision to be found in Section 12, which runs as follows: 'Every claim against th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Dei Vs. Badam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All134
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is a zamindar, and as such instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration of her title to the trees growing on the cultivated and uncultivated land in mauza Kanohanpur in the possession 6f the defendants, who are her tenants. She also prayed for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendants from offering any obstruction to the cutting down and removal by her of the trees on their holdings. The defendants set up a right by custom to cut the trees in question, but this plea was rejected, and a declaration of title was given to the plaintiff appellant as prayed for in her plaint. The two lower Courts also granted to the plaintiff appellant the relief which was claimed by way of injunction ; but upon appeal our brother Richards reversed their decrees and allowed an appeal in respect of the injunction. From this decision the present appeal has been preferred under the Letters Patent. We are o...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prasad and ors. Vs. Sheoram Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All136
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We are of opinion that the proceeding of the Munsif was not vitiated by the fact that it was taken on a Sunday. At the utmost it seems to us that the proceedings may have been irregular, but that any irregularity was cured by the consent of the parties. It is not necessary for us to determine whether the Lord's Day Act applies to this country, but we should be slow to hold that it did, as it would be manifestly inconvenient to do so, the Act being entirely unsuited to the circumstances of the country. We may mention that in the case of Param Shook Doss v. Rasheed Ood Dowlah (1874) 7 Mad. H.C. Rep. 285 it was held that it had no application in this country. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Vs. Gajadhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All133
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. On the facts stated by the learned District Judge of Jaunpur we hold that no question of proprietary title was in issue in the Court of first instance and that no such question is a matter in issue in this appeal. The learned District Judge is right therefore in his view that be had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The opposite view may perhaps derive some support from the observations made towards the conclusion of the judgment in Chhitar Singh v. Rup Singh Weekly Notes, 1906, p. 247, but, with all deference to the learned Judge who decided the case, we are unable to agree with him in holding that, when there is a question whether one party or the other is the cultivator of specified land, a question of proprietary title arises. This is our answer to the reference....
Tag this Judgment!Bhura Vs. Shahab-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All128
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. In our opinion the decision of the learned District Judge affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge is correct. The question is as to the interpretation to be put on the first clause of Section 22 of the Agra Tenancy Act, II of 1901. That clause in the matter of the succession [inter alia) to an occupancy tenant provides that on the death of the tenant his interest in the holding shall devolve on his male lineal descendants in the male line of descent. The appellant and the respondent to this appeal are both male lineal descendants of the last tenant in the male line of descent. The appellant is his son, while the respondent is his grandson. As the respondent's father predeceased his father, the last tenant, the respondent would be excluded under the Bent Act of 1881, Section 9, which by the words 'as if it were land' made the personal law of the party applicable to the descent of an occupancy holding. The appellant therefore desires u...
Tag this Judgment!Tejpal Vs. Girdhari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All130
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff to enforce payment of a sum of Rs. 129-3-0, secured by a mortgage of the 25th of November 1900, by sale, if necessary, of the mortgaged property. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 95 and therefore the mortgage was not compulsorily registrable. After the execution of this mortgage, namely, on the 26th of January 1901, the mortgaged property was sold by Bahraich the mortgagor to Bhagwan Singh, Karan Singh and Tota Ram and the purchase deed in their favour was duly registered. At the date of the sale the purchasers had notice of the unregistered mortgage and therefore must be taken to have purchased the property subject to it. Subsequently the defendant respondent Girdhari Lal claimed a right to pre-empt this sale, and succeeded in his claim and obtained possession of the property. The plaintiff then brought his suit, and it was defended by Girdhari Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Singh Vs. Paltu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All125
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of a 4-pie share in a village. This share was conveyed to the plaintiff by a sale deed of the 6th of May 1898, which was duly registered. Possession was not obtained, and the present suit was therefore brought. In his plaint the plaintiff alleged that the full consideration for the sale, namely, Rs. 200 had been satisfied. In their defence the defendants alleged that the consideration had not been paid, and it is found by both the lower Courts that this was so. In consequence of the finding that no portion of the consideration had been paid, the learned District Judge held that there was in fact no sale of the property. He observes in the course of his judgment: 'Thus not any portion of the consideration has been paid. Non-payment of the 'promised' portion would not invalidate the 'sale,' and the lower Court has recognised...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »