Allahabad Court March 1908 Judgments
Mohib-ullah Vs. Abdul Khalik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All250
Aikman, J.1. The respondents attached a house as belonging to their judgment-debtor, Wali Muhammad, against whom they had obtained a decree. The house had belonged to Ghazi the father of Wali Muhammad. It is proved that Ghazi by a deed of gift executed on the 6th of April 1906, gave the house in equal shares to his daughters-in-law Musammat Haliman and Musammat Ayesha. Ayesha is dead, and the appellant Mohibullah is her son and heir. Musammat Haliman and Mohibullah objected to the attachment. Haliman's objection as to her half was overruled by the Munsif on the ground that at the time of the gift she was on a pilgrimage to Mecca and so did not get possession of the property. The learned Munsif found that Ayesha had got possession of her half share and sustained the objection of Mohibullah. On appeal by the decree-holders the learned Subordinate Judge found that the gift in favour of Ayesha was invalid according to Muhammadan law and overruled Mohibullah's objection. Mohib-ullah comes h...
Tag this Judgment!Banarsi Prasad Vs. Basti Begam and Mumtaz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All297
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The question in this appeal was strenuously and ably argued by Mr. Dillon on behalf of the appellant, and is one of some nicety and difficulty. The plaintiff respondent, Lala Banarsi Prasad, instituted the suit out of which it has arisen to raise the amount due to him on foot of a mortgage of the 29th of October 1897 by sale of the mortgaged property. There was a prior document of the 23rd of October 1897 purporting to be a mortgage of a portion of the property executed by the mortgagor Mumtaz Ahmad in favour of Husain Ali Khan, the husband of the defendant appellant Musammat Basti Begam. This mortgage is found to have been fictitious and without consideration, and to have been made by Mumtaz Ahmad solely for the purpose of defeating his creditors. But Husain Ali Khan transferred it to his wife Musammat Basti Begam on the 15th of August 1898 in satisfaction of portion of her dower debt, and it has been found on issues referred by this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All248
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. The respondent obtained a decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act against the appellants directing them to pay a sum of money, and in. default ordering that the property mortgaged to the respondent should be sold. The respondent applied for an order absolute under Section 89 of the Act. The judgment-debtors pleaded that they had paid a certain sum to the decree-holder out of Court. This was denied by the decree-holder. The Court of first instance found the payment proved and made an order absolute for sale to recover the balance due after deduction of the amount paid out of the Court. The decree-holder appealed. He pleaded that no payment had been made to him out of Court and further that it was not open to the Court, having regard to the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recognise the payment out of Court. Without going into the first plea the learned District Judge sustained the second plea. The judgment-debto...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Asma Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All290
Karamat Husein, J.1. The facts of the case are the following. In a suit for their shares in the property left by one Aminuddin, deceased, a plaint was presented on behalf of Asma Bibi and others against Ahmad Husain and others to the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur.2. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur returned the plaint to be presented to the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, and on the 8th February 1906 a formal order was framed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur which awarded full costs to Asma Bibi and others. The judgment-debtors appealed against that order to the High Court under Section 588, Clause (6), of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the memorandum of appeal objection was taken to the full costs. A Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal under Section 551, Clause (1), of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 24th May 1906.3. Prior to the dismissal of the appeal under Section 551, the judgment-debtors had applie...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Prasad Vs. Gomti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All288
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. Of the two grounds of appeal pressed before us in argument, the first is that Dwarka Prasad had no power under Hindu law, or under the award of the 28th of May, 1879, to appoint the defendants 2--4 as muta-wallis of the temple in the pleadings referred to, and that their appointment was invalid. It appears that there were disputes in regard to that temple, and the matters in difference were referred to arbitration. An award was passed on the 28th of May 1879, which provided that Dwarka Prasad should be the superintendent and manager of the temple. There appears to be no provision in the award for the appointment of a successor to him. We only find in it a direction that if any of the representatives of Dwarka Prasad act dishonestly in regard to the management of the temple, another representative should be competent to defray such expenses and manage and supervise the endowment. The award further provides that if all the heirs and representa...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Singh Vs. Sri Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All246
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. The respondents decree-holders, in execution of a money decree which they had against the appellant, applied for the attachment of the profits which were then due to him from the lambardar of the village on account of the kharif harvest of 1313 Fasli, and also for the attachment of the profits which would become due to him, but were not due at the time of the attachment on account of the rabi harvest of the same year. The judgment-debtor objected. His objections were overruled by the Court of first instance, whose decision was affirmed by the learned District Judge. The judgment-debtor comes here in second appeal. The learned advocate for the appellant confines his appeal to the question as to the right to attach the rabi profits. It support of his appeal he relies on the cases--Hari Das Acharjia Chowdhry v. Baroda Kishore (1899) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 38 and Udoy Kumari Ghatwalin v. Hari Ram Shaha (1901) I.L.R. 28 Calc. 483. These cases are not exactly on all...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Serh Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All243
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. A Magistrate of the first class in the Banda district on the application of one Bhairon Prasad granted sanction for the prosecution of the applicant Serh Mal for an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Serh Mal applied to the learned Sessions Judge to revoke this sanction. The learned Judge declined to interfere. Serh Mal then applied to this Court in revision, and the record was sent for under the provisions of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The first question we have to consider is whether this Court can interfere in revision. We have been referred to a decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Kusal v. Badri Prasad Weekly Notes, 1907, p. 283. With the opening part of that judgment we are in full agreement If Section 195 stood alone in the Code, we are of opinion that this Court would have no right to interfere in the case. With all deference to the learned Judges who decided the case Muthuswami Mudali v....
Tag this Judgment!Banni Begam Vs. Khairati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All240
Richards, J.1. Khairati, defendant in the present suit, brought a suit on the 29th August 1904 upon foot of a mortgage, dated the 10th December 1895, whereby Intizam Begam mortgaged the property, the subject matter of the present suit to him. He only made his mortgagor Intizam Begam, a defendant to the suit. A decree was obtained, but when Khairati applied for execution the property was claimed by Banni Begam, the mother-in-law of Intizam Begam. The present suit was then instituted by Banni Begam under the provisions of Section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below have decided the suit in favour of Banni Begam on the simple ground that Khairati knew that Banni Begam claimed that Intizam Begam was benamidar for her, and that he was bound to make her a party to the suit he brought on foot of his mortgage. I have only to consider whether the lower Courts were justified in decreeing Banni Begam's suit without coming to any finding whether or not the property was really the ...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All235
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is the zamindar of the village of Radhakund in the district of Muttra and the defendant occupies a house in the abadi of that village. The claim of the plaintiff is to recover three years' rent of the house so occupied by the defendant. Under the wajib-ul-arz of the village the zemindar is declared to be entitled to one taka (that is, 6 pies) per month for every house from the occupants of the village and also from the owners of shops and temples. The defence set up by the defendant was that this rent had never been paid and was not leviable by the plaintiff. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim and this decree was affirmed on appeal, the lower Courts finding that the alleged custom was proved. On second appeal, however, the learned Judge of this Court allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. [See Weekly Notes, 1907, p. 247, S.V. Shankar v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Khiali Ram Vs. Himmata and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All238
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Khiali Ram. Khiali Ram is a holder of an unregistered mortgage-deed, dated the 27th of January 1895. The deed was one the registration of which was not compulsory under the Indian Registration Act. He sued the obligors of the deed to recover the money due under his deed and in default to bring to sale the property hypothecated in the deed. He also added to the suit as a party one Bhoja, who had purchased the same property under a sale-deed; dated the 8th of February 1905, but not registered until the 7th of April 1905. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim and the lower appellate Court on appeal arrived at the same finding. It held that there was no evidence to show that the respondent Bhoja had any knowledge of the plaintiff's mortgage on the date of the sale, but it further found that a notice was served on Bhoja after the execution of the sale-deed, but before its registration. The lower appellate Court o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »