Allahabad Court February 1908 Judgments
Ram Dhani Sahu Vs. Lalit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.220
1. This is an application by Ram Dhani Sahu, the appellant, for an extension of the time fixed by this Court for payment of a mortgage debt under a decree of the 23rd of July 1908. By that decree the appellant was directed to pay a prior mortgage on or before the 5th of November 1908. Owing to delay in obtaining a copy of the judgment, the date which was so fixed was allowed to pass over without payment. The present application is now made to this Court to extend the time for payment.2. A preliminary objection is raised to the application to the effect that the proper Court to which this application should be made is the Court of first instance. We think that this preliminary objection is well-founded. The question as to the proper Court to which such an application should be presented was considered by a Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member, in the case of Sheo Narain v. Chunni Lal 23 A. 88. In the judgment in that case the authorities are reviewed and the language of S...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prasad and anr. Vs. Gauripat Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All188
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. This was a suit for sale upon two mortgages, dated respectively the 14th and the 18th of June 1897. The mortgages were executed by Sripat Rai as the guardian of the respondents with the sanction of the District Judge. The amount of the first mortgage was Us. 1,400 and that of the other Rs. 1,800, and they carried interest at the rate of Re. 1-8 per cent. per mensem, that is, Rs. 18 per cent. per annum. The learned Judge in granting sanction for the raising of the loans permitted the guardian Sripat Rai to raise as much as he could by hypothecating a oue-anna share, though he directed the guardian not to spend more than Rs. 1,100 on the marriage of Gauripat Rai, the first respondent, for the expenses of which the loan was to be raised. The Court below has found that the plaintiff actually paid Rs. 1,400 on account of the first bond. As for the second bond, it was represented to the Judge that Rs. 1,887 were required for redeeming certain ornaments which had b...
Tag this Judgment!Shahbaz Khan and ors. Vs. Umrao Puri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All181
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The litigation which has led to this appeal might, we think, have been avoided by the exercise of some common sense and toleration. The question before us is whether the members of the Muhammadan community in the village of Behta Goshain in the district of Budaun have a right to slaughter cows within their own premises in the village for the purpose of daily food as well as for sacrifice under any limitation or otherwise. The village in question has a population of about 3,000, of whom leas than a thousand are Muhammadans and the remainder Hindus. The defendants on the 16th of November 1903 applied to the District Magistrate of Budaun for an order that the Muhammadans in the village might be forbidden to slaughter kine in the village. A charge was thereupon preferred against the plaintiff Shabhaz Khan and others, purporting to be under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the 6th of December 1903, the District Magistrate passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad and anr. Vs. Indar Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All179
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in proceedings arising out of the execution of the decree. An application was presented within time for attachment of certain house property. An objection was filed to this attachment, which was rejected on the 18th December 1903 On the 12th of January 1904 the objectors instituted a and regular suit. In consequence of this suit the Court postponed the sale of the property and struck off the application. On the 7th September 1904 the suit was dismissed, but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge. The decree-holders preferred a second appeal to this Court, which has been decided in their favour. Whilst the case was pending in this Court the decree-holders, as a matter of precaution, applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtors. This application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that there had been no application to the Court to take any step in aid of the execution within three years previously ...
Tag this Judgment!Nita Ram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All176
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Saharanpur upon a reference to him under Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, The Government were acquiring, under the powers conferred by the Act, a small piece of land at the end of a garden occupied by Nita Ram. We expressly refrain from any expression of opinion as to the nature of Nita Ram's occupancy. That question is not before us. The piece of land is situate at one corner at the extreme end of the garden which is used in connection with the house. The appellant contends here, as ha clearly contended before the District Judge, that, inasmuch as the piece of land was part of the garden, it was a part of the house within the meaning of Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the owner of the property was entitled to insist that the Government should take the whole house and garden, not merely the particular bit of the garden which was necessary for the special purpose for which the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Das and ors. Vs. Sabju Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All268
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, who are appellants here, come into Court on the allegation that the defendant respondent, on the 2nd November 1899, executed a document, described as a sarkhat, in favour of the plaintiffs' firm in respect of an old debt of Rs. 995-10-0 due by him to the firm, and that in this document he promised to pay the aforesaid sum without interest.2. The plaint sets forth that again on the 24th of October 1902, a similar document was executed by the defendant promising to pay the aforesaid debt without interest. The plaintiff sued to recover the amount due under this document. The defendant pleaded that the document sued on was a mere acknowledgment and was not a promise to pay a time-barred debt, and that the suit was not maintainable on the mere acknowledgment.3. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion, on a consideration of the language of the document which is the basis of the suit, that it was not a mere acknowledgment of a debt, ...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Khan Vs. Munir-un-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All172
John Stanley, C.J. and Aikman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a vendor to enforce payment of the balance of his purchase money by sale of the purchased property. The main question raised in the appeal is whether Article 111 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act, or Article 132 is applicable to the case. Article 111 provides for a suit brought by a vendor of immovable property to enforce his lien for unpaid purchase money and the period given for the institution of a suit under that article is three years. Article 132 provides for a suit to enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property, the period allowed for the institution of such a suit being 12 years. It is admitted that if Article 111 is applicable to this case the suit is barred, but if Article 132 applies the suit has been brought within time.2. The respondent's case is that the suit is not a suit to enforce a lien within the meaning of Article 111, but is a suit to enforce a statutory charge created b...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Das Vs. Abparkash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All169
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The decree in this case in respect of which the appeal before us has been preferred was passed upon a so-called award. After evidence had been given and some of the issues in the case had been determined by the Court, and there remained two issues only for determination, by consent of the parties the matters in difference were left to the arbitration of two gentlemen who happened to be present in Court. The Court there and then passed an order referring the matter to arbitration, but did not as is required by Section 508, fix a time for the delivery of the award or name the arbitrators. The arbitrators forthwith proceeded in Court, without the examination of the parties, to draw up an award, and upon the award so drawn up, which does not deal specifically with the two issues which remained undetermined, a decree was passed. The main objection to the decree which was so passed is that the whole proceedings were irregular owing to the fact tha...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Prasad Singh Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All167
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We think that the decision of the Courts below is correct. The plaintiff appellant has been able to establish no such relationship existing between him and the defendants as would justify the payment of the money which he now seeks to recover. It has been found by the Courts below that the assignment made to him of the mortgagee rights of the defendants was fictitious and collusive, and consequently the judgment creditors of the assignors had a right to sell those mortgagee rights in execution of their decree. We do not think that Section 69 or Section 70 of the Contract Act helps the appellants. As regards Section 69, a party who makes a payment on behalf of another, before he can recover the amount so paid, must show that he had an interest in making the payment. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in dealing with the rights of parties making payments observed, in the case of Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Lall Sahoo (1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 131: ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihari Lal Vs. Babu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All156
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent to recover money due upon eight mortgage bonds by sale of the property hypothecated in each bond. There were two brothers, Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh, who formed members of a joint Hindu family. A portion of the family property was recorded in the name of their mother Indar Kunwar and for this reason she joined her sons in executing some of the bonds. Of the eight bonds in suit two were executed by Mahtab Singh alone; two by Mahtab Singh and Indar Kunwar; one by Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh; another by Rup Singh and Indar Kunwar; another by Rup Singh, Mahtab Singh, and Indar Kunwar, and one by Rup Singh and Indar Kunwar. Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh being dead, the suit was brought against their sons, who disputed the claim mainly on the ground that the debts in respect of which the eight bonds were executed had been incurred by Rup Singh and Mahtab Singh for immoral purposes, and that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »