Allahabad Court November 1908 Judgments
Piari Lal Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.561
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale of mortgaged property. It was dismissed under the following circumstances as barred by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that in the year 1880 the predecessors in title of some of the defendants and the other defendants executed a mortgage in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiff. A suit was brought upon this mortgage on the 21st of September 1882, in which a sale of the mortgaged property was claimed. The suit was compromised on the terms that a simple money decree only should be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and such, a decree was passed on the 27th of November 1882. The events which happened subsequent to the date of this compromise it is unnecessary for the purposes of the decision of this appeal to detail, suffice it to say that the amount due to the plaintiff on foot of the compromise was not satisfied, or at least fully satisfied. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted for s...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dungar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All36; 1Ind.Cas.568
Richards and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. Dungar Singh was convicted under Section 62, of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 or to suffer simple imprisonment for 40 days. It appears that the accused held a decree for rent against a certain tenant and gave a receipt for the amount of the decree to the tenant without any stamp denoting payment of duty. The accused Dungar Singh was himself merely an agent of a zamindar. Generally speaking, receipts must be stamped, but an exemption is made by Article 53(c), Schedule I, of the Stamp Act in favour of receipts for payment of rent by cultivators on account of land assessed to Government revenue. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, suggesting that the conviction is wrong and should be set aside, inasmuch as a receipt for money paid under a decree for rent must be treated as a receipt for rent, A learned Judge of this Court considering the mutter ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadar-ud-dIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Chajju and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All13
John Stanley, Kt. C.J1. The facts of this case are these. One Chajju executed a mortgage of certain property in favour of Husain Bakhsh and Nathu to secure a principal sum of Rs. 1,000, the mortgage being expressed to be made for a term of 25 years. In the mortgage there is a provision for redemption. The redemption clause provides that on payment of the amount due in the month of Jeth after the expiry of the term of 25 years the mortgage might be redeemed. The mortgagors refused to register the mortgage, and thereupon an application was made by the mortgagees for compulsory registration and compulsory registration was effected. Subsequently the mortgagees applied for mutation of names in the mutation department. To this, not merely Chajju, but another person named Abdulla objected. Abdulla, it will be noted, was no party to the mortgage. He claimed to be entitled to a share in the mortgaged property, and hence he objected to mutation of names so far at least as regarded his share. The...
Tag this Judgment!Sadar-ud-dIn Ahmad and ors. Vs. Chajju and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.558
John Stainley, C.J.1. The facts of this case are these. One Chajju executed a mortgage of certain property in favour of Husain Bakhsh and Nathu to secure a principal sum of Rs. 1,000, the mortgage being expressed to be made for a term of 25 years. In the mortgage there is a provision for redemption The redemption clause provides that on payment of the amount due in the month of Jeth after the expiry of the term of 25 years the mortgage might be redeemed. The mortgagors refused to register the mortgage, and thereupon an application was made by the mortgagees for compulsory registration and compulsory registration was effected. Subsequently the mortgagees applied for mutation of names in the mutation department. To this, not merely Chajju, but another person named Abdulla objected. Abdulla, it will be noted, was no party to the mortgage. He claimed to be entitled to a share in the mortgaged property, and hence he objected to mutation of names so far at least as regarded his share. The di...
Tag this Judgment!Joti Prasad Vs. Aziz Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All11; 1Ind.Cas.53
1. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage executed on the 10th of August 1888 by one Karam Khan. The deed specified the property mortgaged which was described in the body of the document as the mortgagor's personal share in his possession. This mortgage was sot out in paragraph 1 of the plaint which was admitted in the written statement filed by the defendants, who are the sons, daughters and widow of Karam Khan executant. In the last paragraph, of the written statement it is alleged that the property mortgaged originally belonged to one Salahi, father of Karam Khan, and that there were other persons besides Karam Khan, who were heirs to Salahi. On the other hand in paragraph 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement it appears that the mortgage was a mortgage of the entire property and that the mortgagee had been realizing the profits from the tenants. The Court of first instance finding that Karam Khan was entitled to a 2/5th share only in the property mortgaged gave the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Singh and ors. Vs. Matabadal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All44; 1Ind.Cas.703
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur returning a plaint to the appellants for presentation in the Court of the Munsif. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage, the amount secured by the mortgage being Rs. 1,000. In the plaint it is stated that the value of the property is Rs. 9,000. The learned Counsel for the respondents takes a preliminary objection based on Section 689 of the Code of Civil Procedure, viz., that the appeal does not lie to this Court, but to the Court of the District Judge. This preliminary objection really raises the issue as to whether the plaintiffs' suit was cognizable by the Munsif or by the Subordinate Judge. If the 'value' of the suit is to be taken to be the amount secured by the mortgage, then, under Section 19(1) of Act No. XII of 1887, the plaint should have been filed in the Court of the Munsif and the action taken by the Subordinate Judge in returning it is right. In the case of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›