Allahabad Court December 1908 Judgments
Kishun Kunwar Vs. Ganga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.820
1. This was a suit on foot of a mortgage. The plaintiff's mortgage was dated the 18th of January, 1901. Defendant No. 1 was the executant of the mortgage. Defendant No. 2 held a prior mortgage from the same mortgagor. He also held a second mortgage from the same mortgagor and also he held a third mortgage from him. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Defendant No. 2 alone appealed. His grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court were that he had not had sufficient opportunity to present his case, and that he had applied to the Court of first instance to adjourn the case, which that Court refused to do. The matter having come up for trial to the lower appellate Court, judgment was delivered on the 20th of May 1908. The Court in the clearest possible way decided that defendant No. 2 had had sufficient opportunity in the Court below. The judgment goes into the entire facts of the case. It deals with all the objections of defendant No. 2. It was, however, necessary for the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All82
John Stanley, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case as found by the lower appellate court are as follows: In execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Musammat Mohini against one Shankar Lal, the interest of the latter in certain property was sold and purchased in the name of the defendant Bansidhar as a benamidar for the decree-holder Musammat Mohini. On the 27th of November 1897 the sale certificate was issued to Musammat Mohini and she by a tamliknama, dated the 20th of September 1900, transferred her in crest to her daughter-in-law, the plaintiff Musammat Bhagwati. Bansidhar, the nominal purchaser, purported o resell the property to the defendant Ganga on the 27th of July 1897, and Ganga purported again to sell it to Musammat Mohini, but these last-mentioned sales may be left out of consideration as it is admitted by both Bansidhar and Ganga that Musammat Mohini was the real purchaser. The representatives of the mortgagor were in possession of the property at the date of the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Badal Singh and ors. Vs. Gopal Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All111
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. This and the connected appeals arise out of pre emption suits. The plaintiff claims on foot of the wajib-ul-arz. It has been found by both the courts below that the wajib-ul-arz records a contract and not a custom. The court of first instance dismissed the suits upon the ground that the period of settlement for which the wajib-ul-arz was prepared had come to an end. The lower court found that the wajib-ul-arz was still in existence at the dates of the sales. In the present appeal it has been urged on behalf of the defendants vendees that inasmuch as the settlement, and therefore the contract, had come to end before the time at which a decree could be given, the plaintiff's right to preempt must fail. For the purpose of these appeals it is assumed that the plaintiff had, at the time of the institution of the suits, a right to pre-empt the property by virtue of the contract which is recorded in the wajib-vi-arz, and the only question argued here and which we h...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gutali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All148
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. The appellant Gutali, alias Ajudhia, has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. He has also been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. We have read through the whole of the evidence and we see no reason whatever to doubt the prisoner's guilt. On the 29th of May last he attached himself to an old man Arjun and his grandson Ram Nath, who had gone to Mahaban to purchase an ox. He was previously unknown to them. He said that he was a Thakur of Chilikpurwa and that he too bad come to buy an ox. He remained in their company from 2 or 3 gttaris after sunrise until after noon. Both Arjun and his grandson partook of the food which the accused had procured. The accused pressed them to go to the village Karahra where he said he had seen some b...
Tag this Judgment!Jhingai Singh Vs. Ram Partap
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All150; 1Ind.Cas.762
George Knox, J.1. This is an application in revision asking this Court to call for the record and to revise an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the magistrate who passed the order complained of refused to uphold an order passed by the Civil Court and decided the question before him contrary to that order. I have considered the following cases referred to by the learned advocate for the applicant: Daulat Koer v. Rameswari Koeri (1899) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 625 In re Pandurang Govind (1900) I.L.R. 24 Bom. 527 and Baldeo Baksh Singh v. Raj Ballam Singh (1903) 2 A.L.J.R. 274 decided by this Court on 11th December 1903. But it has already been held by a Bench of the Court in Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai (1903) I.L.R. 26 All. 144 that as the law at present stands where the proceedings below are in intention, in form and in fact proceedings under chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a magistrate duly empowered to act under that chap...
Tag this Judgment!Wazir Khan Vs. Naqul Yawar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.163
Richards, J.The facts out of which this application arises are shortly as follows:A suit was brought against the applicant to recover possession of a certain house. The applicant was a Railway servant and when the summons was brought to him he endorsed on it that the summons should have been served through his official superior and refused to receive the summons. The officer serving the summons then brought back the summons without proceeding to affix a copy of it to the house. An ex parte decree was passed against the defendant by the Munsif. The defendant applied to set aside the ex parte decree. The Munsif refused it. The defendant then appealed to the District Judge who refused to interfere with the decision of the Munsif. The present application is made to set aside in revision the orders of the Courts below. Rule 28 of the rules of the 4th of April 1894 provides that summons on Railway servants shall ordinarily be served through their official superior and a reasonable time shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bhagwati Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.416
John Stanley C.J.1. The facts of this case as found by the lower appellate Court are as follows:In execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Musammat Mohini against one Shankar Lal, the interest of the latter in certain property was sold and purchased in the name of the defendant Bansidhar as a benamidar for the decree-holder Musammat Mohini. On the 27th of November 1897, the sale certificate was issued to Musammat Mohini and she by a tamliknama, dated the 20th of September 1900, transferred her interest to her daughter-in-law, the plaintiff Musammat Bhagwati. Bansidhar, the nominal purchaser, purported to resell the property to the defendant Ganga on the 27th of July 1897, and Ganga purported again to sell it to Musammat Mohini, but these last-mentioned sales may be left out of consideration as it is admitted by both Bansidhar and Ganga that Musammat Mohini was the real purchaser. The representatives of the mortgagor were in possession of the property at the date of the sale and ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Prasad and anr. Vs. Badal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.819
1. This and the connected appeals arise out of pre-emption suits. The plaintiff claims on foot of the wajib-ul-arz. It has been found by both the Courts below that the wajib-ul-arz records a contract and not a custom. The Court of first instance dismissed the suits upon the ground that the period of settlement for which the wajib-ul-arz was prepared had come to an end. The lower Court found that the wajib-ul-arz was still in existence at the dates of the sales in the present appeal it has been urged on behalf of the defendants vendees that inasmuch as the settlement, and therefore the contract, had come to end before the time at which a decree could be given, the plaintiff's right to pre-empt must fail. For the purpose of these appeals it is assumed that the plaintiff had, at the time of the institution of the suits, a right to pre-empt the property by virtue of the contract which is recorded in the wajib-ul-arz, and the only question argued here and which we have to decide is whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Prasad and ors. Vs. Jagdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.83
Knox, J.1. On the finding at which the learned Subordinate Judge arrived, which finding has not been assailed, namely, that the share of the plaintiffs does not appear to have been included in the sale deed, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree which they asked for, namely, possession or to the declaratory decree which they obtained. The mere apprehension that complications may arise in future is not a proper ground for the granting of a declaratory decree having regard to the finding set out above. On that finding the appellants have been unnecessarily dragged into Court. We allow the (sic) set aside the (sic) of this Court and of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the first Court dismissing the suit. The appellants will have their costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Yahiya and ors. Vs. Rashid-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All65
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiffs in respect of a mortgage executed by them and by some of the defendants and the predecessors in title of other defendants. The mortgage was made on the 20th of August 1892, and a decree was obtained on the basis of it on the 11th of July 1902. On the 22nd of April 1903 portions of the mortgaged property were sold by auction in execution of the decree and the whole amount of the mortgage was thereby discharged. One of the mortgagors whose property was sold has already sued for and obtained a decree for contribution. The present suit was brought by the plaintiffs for contribution against those of the mortgagors or their representatives whose interests in the mortgaged property were not sold by auction. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that their property has contributed towards the mortgage debt a much larger amount than that for which it was proportionately liable. The plaintiffs accordingly cla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »