Allahabad Court December 1908 Judgments
Jote Singh Vs. Chokhey Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All73
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The suit out of which these appeals arise relates to the right of succession to the property of one Munnu Singh, who died childless on the 24th May 1896. The property consists of shares in some thirty villages in the District of Sitapur, in the Province of Ondh. The claimants are Jote Singh, the only surviving brother of the deceased, and Chokhey Singh and Gajraj Singh, his nephews, the sons of a brother who had predeceased him.2. It is not disputed that, under the ordinary Hindu law applicable to the family, Jote Singh was the nearest heir and entitled to succeed to the whole estate. His nephews, however, sought to defeat his claim on various grounds. They alleged that they had been joint with Munnu Singh during his life-time, and that he had made an oral will in their favour. Both Courts in India found against them on these points. They set up a family custom, whereby brothers and brothers' sons are entitled to succeed together, but they entirely failed to establi...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Yahya and ors. Vs. Rashid-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.5a
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 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!In Re: Kedar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All59; 1Ind.Cas.143a
Karamat Husain, J.1. The learned District Judge of Meerut acting under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), by his order dated the 15th June 1908, framed a list containing the names of 11 persons who by the evidence of general repute were proved to his satisfaction to habitually act as touts and directed it to be hung in his own Court and in all Courts subordinate to him including the Rent Courts. The applicant Kedar Nath is one of the persons whose name is on that list. He has applied for the revision of that order of the learned District Judge. There is no appeal from such an order nor is there any revision either under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only section under which the High Court has been held entitled to interfere with an order passed under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act is Section 15 of the High Courts Act (24 and 25 Vict., C. 104, 6th August 1861). In the application for r...
Tag this Judgment!Choga Lal Vs. Piyari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All58
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Cantonment Magistrate of Jhansi exercising the powers of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes, under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The question which he submits for the opinion of the Court is whether the English law is operative in a suit to recover rent due for a residence or quarters rented to a prostitute, with knowledge that such residence or quarters would be used by her to carry on her immoral trade and profession. It seems to us unnecessary to determine whether the English law is applicable in this country, because we find that there is an express provision of the Indian Contract Act under which a contract for such a purpose would be illegal. Section 23 of that Act provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless, amongst other things, the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. If the object of an agreement is immoral or opposed to public po...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Das Vs. Nabi Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All109
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This case has been referred to us by the learned District Judge of Saharanpur under the provisions of Section 195 of the Agra Tenancy Act, the learned Judge having doubts as to whether an appeal preferred to him lay in the Civil Court or in the Revenue Court. The suit out of which the reference arises was brought by a landholder against a tenant and sub-lessees from that tenant. The plaintiff's allegation was that the tenant, who is the first defendant, had no power to grant sub-leases to the other defendants, and that by granting the leases the tenant had not only contravened the provisions of the Tenancy Act but had also done an act detrimental to the land and inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let. The suit was described in the plaint as one under Sections 57 and 31 of the Tenancy, Act. Section 57 of that Act provides that a tenant may be ejected on any of the grounds mentioned in the different clauses of the section. The ground ...
Tag this Judgment!Choga Lal Vs. Musammat Piari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.52
1. This is a reference made by the learned Cantonment Magistrate of Jhansi exercising the powers of a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question which he submits for the opinion of the Court is whether the English, law is operative in a suit to recover rent due for a residence or quarters rented to a prostitute, 'with knowledge that such residence or quarters would be used by her to carry on her immoral trade and profession. It seems to us unnecessary to determine whether the English law is applicable in this country, because we find that there is an express provision of the Indian Contract Act under which a contract for such a purpose would be illegal. Section 23 of that Act provides that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless, amongst other things, the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. If the object of an agreement is immoral or opposed to public policy clearly the agreement cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Das Vs. Nabi Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.161
1. This case has been referred to us by the learned District Judge of Saharanpur under the provisions of Section 195 of the Agra Tenancy Act, the learned Judge having doubts as to whether an appeal preferred to him lay in the Civil Court or in the Revenue Court. The suit out of which the reference arises was brought by a land-holder against a tenant and sub-lessees from that tenant. The plaintiff's allegation was that the tenant, who is the first defendant, had no power to grant sub-leases to the other defendants and that by granting the leases the tenant had not only contravened the provisions of the Tenancy Act but had also done an act detrimental to the land and inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let. The suit was described in the plaint as one under Sections 57 and 31 of the Tenancy Act. Section 57 of that Act provides that a tenant may be ejected on any of the grounds mentioned in the different clauses of the section. The ground mentioned in Clause (d) is that the tena...
Tag this Judgment!ihsanul Haq Vs. Kallan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.85
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption based on Muhammadan law. The Court of First Instance found that the requirements of Muhammadan law as to demands had not been complied with and dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed this finding and remanded the case. The present appeal was then instituted and it has been contended that the decision of the lower Appellate Court was wrong in law inasmuch as on the plaintiff's own evidence he had not complied with the talah-i-mawasibat or the talab-i-ishhad and this is the question which we have now to decide. The plaintiff in his evidence stated that as soon as he heard of the purchase from a friend he at once said 'I am a pre-emptor; I have a claim (main shafi hun; mera haq hai).'2. As to the second demand the plaintiff says that he brought his witnesses, repeated the same words, asked the vendee to take his money and when the vendee refused, he mentioned that he had clearly made the first demand and called on the wit...
Tag this Judgment!Kandhya Lal Vs. Manki
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All56
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. The respondent Musammat Manki obtained from the District Judge letters of administration for the estate of her deceased husband on condition of her giving a bond together with a surety for the due collection, getting in and administering the estate. The appellant Kandhya Lal became surety for her. Less than six months afterwards the appellant asked the District Judge to cancel the surety bond which he had given and to call upon Musammat Manki to furnish a fresh surety. The District Judge rejected this application. The appellant come here in appeal. The Courts at Calcutta and Madras are at variance as to whether a surety bond given under the circumstances stated can be cancelled--see Raj Narain Mookerjee v. Ful Kumari Debi (1902) I.L.R. 29 Calc. 68 and Subroya Chetty v. Ragammal (1905) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 161. The former Court held that a surety bond given under the circumstances stated is a continuing guarantee within the meaning of Section 129 of the Contra...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath Vs. Dibbo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All53
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. This was a suit to enforce a mortgage, dated the 6th of September 1884. The defence was that the mortgage was without consideration, that the mortgagors had no power to mortgage $e property and that the suit was barred by limitation. The admitted facts are that at the date of the mortgage one Musammat Shitabo was in possession as a Hindu widow, having succeeded her husband, one Bhola, who died childless. A number of transfers have since 'been made. Some of the defendants are the transferees of Musammat Shitabo and some are transferees of Tota Ram and Har Sukh the mortgagors named in the mortgage deed. The mortgage deed bears interest at the rate of 371/2 per cent, per annum. Musammat Shitabo died on the 5th of October 1888, and no proceedings were taken until the institution of the present suit on the 18th of January 1906. The Court below has found that the deed was fictitious and that no consideration-passed. The mortgage deed was registered, and it appears...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »