Allahabad Court March 1908 Judgments
Bihari Singh Vs. Saddu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All282
Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent, who is one of the zamindars of the village Bharatpur, a hamlet of Darihal, for the ejectment of the appellant, Saddu, from the site of his dwelling house and for a decree directing him to remove the materials of the house or to receive compensation for the value of those materials. The house is situated in a portion of the abadi of the village which has fallen into the share of the plaintiff by partition. The defendant cultivates land in another mahal of the same village, under a different proprietor. The plaintiff seeks to eject him from his house on the ground that he refuses to pay ground rent for the site of the house. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Court has reversed the decree of that Court. The defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The learned Judge of the Court below has found upon issues referred to him that about 30 years ago, that is, about the ...
Tag this Judgment!Wilayati Begam Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All231
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court from whose decision this appeal has been preferred. They are not complicated. The plaintiff Musammat Wilayati Began was entitled to an undivided share of the estate of one Nihali Begam consisting of a 16 biswansi zamindari share of a mahal and also sir land appertaining thereto. She brought a suit against Ali Sher Khan and others for recovery of this share, and on the 12th of December l896 got a decree for possession. This decree was not put into execution until the 6th of December 1899. Formal possession was given in 1900. While this suit was pending, one Raghunath Das, who had obtained a simple money decree against Ali Sher Khan and the other defendants to the suit of Wilayati Begam, attached end fold the property in which Wilayati Begam was a share-holder, and at the auction sale the defendant Nand Kishore became the purchaser on the 20th of August...
Tag this Judgment!Bhup Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All225
Aikman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur remanding a case under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs, who are respondents here, brought a suit against the appellant in a Munsif's Court for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. They obtained a decree and were put in possession of the mortgaged property on the 13th of March 1906. They subsequently brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover from the appellant Rs. 5,000 on account of surplus collections alleged to have been received since 1874) when the mortgage debt was discharged by the usufruct of the property. The - suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was dismissed by him on the ground that it was barred by the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge held that the suit was not barred and remanded it for decision on the merits. It is aga...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Begam Vs. the Bank of Upper India, Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All273
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The facts of this case are these. The Bank of Upper India held a decree for sale of the property of Afzal Shab, Dost Muhammad Khan and Amir Muhammad Khan. In execution of that decree they attached and advertised for sale the property of their judgment-debtors. The plaintiff, Musammat Amir Begam, who is the wife of Afzal Shah, authorized one Haidar Shah to purchase for her out of the property so advertised for sale, as she alleges, the share which belonged to her husband, but not the shares of Dost Muhammad Khan and Amir Muhammad Khan, in the village of Purwana Mahmudpur. The share of Afzal Shah in this village was sold on the 20th of August 1903 to the plaintiff, and the deposit in respect of the purchase money was duly made and this sale was carried out, With this share we have nothing to do in this appeal. The shares of the other judgment-debtors in this village were put up for sale on the 23rd of August 1903 and were knocked down for a su...
Tag this Judgment!Niaz Ahmad Vs. Abdul Hamid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All279
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ. 1. This is a reference by Government under Rule 17 of the Kumaun Rules, 1894, asking for the report and opinion of this Court on certain questions arising out of an appellate decree of the Commissioner of Kumaun. The case is a difficult one. After hearing it thoroughly and ably argued by the counsel on both sides, we reply as follows:In the suit filed in Moradabad, the plaintiff came into Court alleging a partnership between himself and the defendant. He asserted that certain property had been acquired by the defendant out of the partnership funds, and that it had been dishonestly entered by the defendant in his own name. He asked for a declaration that the property in question was partnership property, and further asked to be put in possession of one-half of it. In that plaint he referred to the existence of other property in Naini Tal and said that as he could not legally sue for it in the Moradabad Court, he would bring a separate suit for it. The Mora...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath Vs. Tirbeni Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All41
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. We agree in the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court from whom this appeal has been preferred, and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. Tirbeni Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.696
1. We agree in the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court from whom this appeal has been preferred, and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Tuhi Ram Vs. Izzat Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All192
John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.1. The matters which have led to this appeal are shortly as follows: One Multan Singh obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage made by the defendants, and in execution of that decree had the property put up for sale. Part of the property was non-ancestral and this portion was sold by the Civil Court. The remainder being ancestral, the sale of it was transferred to the Collector. On the 20th of September 1904, the Collector sold this portion to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000. On the 5th of October 1904, Izzat Ali, one of the co-owners of the property, filed an objection to the sale alleging material irregularities in its conduct and consequent loss of a substantial nature, and praying that the sale should be set aside under Rule 17 (XII). On the 19th October following one of the defendants, Abdul Hai, also a co-owner, applied to the Collector under Rule 17 (XIIIA) to have the sale set aside, depositing at the same time in Court a sum equa...
Tag this Judgment!Basharat-ullah and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All271
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. The plaintiffs, who are respondents to this second appeal,' produced before the Munsif of Muttra two documents; one was a conveyance, and the other a receipt. They wished the two documents admitted in evidence in support of their claim. Both the documents were documents executed in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs. The Munsif, being of opinion that the documents were not properly stamped, impounded them and sent them in original to the Collector, under the provisions of Section 38, Clause (2) of Act No. II of 1899. The Collector, acting under Section 40, Clause (1) (6), of the same Act, required from the plaintiffs payment of the proper duty together with a penalty. The plaintiffs did not pay the penalty, and the Collector put in force the provisions of Section 48 of the same Act, and attached certain property of the plaintiffs. Thereupon the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for the release of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Kabir Un-nissa Vs. Gulzari Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All191
Aikman and Karamat Husein, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. A preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal is raised by the learned vakil for the respondent. It appears that the order of remand now appealed against was passed on the 12th of November 1906. Under that order the case went to the Court of first instance, and was by that Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff respondent on the 28th of January 1907. The present appeal, though it bears an endorsement of the stamp reporter, dated the 19th of January 1907, was not presented until the 29th January 1907, one day after the decree in plaintiff's favour had been passed.2. The appellants filed no appeal from the decree which had been passed against them. In support of his objection the learned vakil for the respondent relies on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Madhu Sudan Sen v. Kamini Kanta Sen (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc., 1023, and on a decision of this Court in Salig Ram v. Brij Bilas (1907) I.L.R., 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›