Allahabad Court May 1908 Judgments
Robert Skinner Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.556
1. The respondent in this appeal got his name entered in the Khewat in spite of appellant's objections by order of the Settlement Officer on the 5th of May 1899. On the strength of the entry the respondent, on the 5th of May 1903, instituted a suit for profits of the share in respect of which he had got his name entered. On the 27th of July 1905, while the suit for profits was yet pending, plaintiffs brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration of their right to the share and that the defendant had no proprietary right in the share recorded in his name. The suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance as barred by limitation. In appeal the decree of the first Court was affirmed. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal.2. The Courts below reckoned as the starting point the order of the Settlement Officer referred to above. No doubt the plaintiffs might, upon this order being made, have instituted a suit for a declaratory decree, but in our opinion...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Baldeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All390
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. The appellant, on the 20th of November 1897, purchased certain immovable property in execution of his own decree, and the sale was confirmed on the 5th of January 1898. The appellant took no steps to obtain a sale, certificate until the 15th of September 1905, and a certificate was granted to him on the 21st of March 1906. On the 3rd of January 1907, he applied under Section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be put in possession of the property which he had bought in 1897. The judgment-debtor objected that the application was barred by limitation. This objection was overruled by the Court of first instance, but on appeal was sustained by the learned District Judge. The auction purchaser comes here in second appeal. The only plea argued before us was that the application was not barred. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Basapa v. Marya (1879) I.L.R. 3 Bom. 433 and in Kashinath Trimbak Joshi v. Dumi...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Das and anr. Vs. Akhay Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All470
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:The plaintiffs brought a suit for their share, amounting to Rs. 151-8-0, in an annuity which was a charge on a 7 1/2 biswa share in the village An walkhera for the years 1309, 1310 and 1311 Fasli. The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit. He held that the judgment of this Court, dated the 14th August 1905, did not operate as res judicata, inasmuch as the subject-matter in issue in the case in which that judgment was pronounced was not the same as in the present case. He remarks: 'I do not think (that) that judgment can operate as res judicata, the subject-matter being different, viz. for a different year's charge.2. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge. Their fifth ground of appeal was that 'the question of the liability of the defendant No. 1 to pay the plaintiffs is res judicata.'2. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!Chattar Singh Vs. Mul Kunwar and ors. and Musammat Naugi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All402
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought under the following circumstances: Two brothers, Dip Chand and Lajja Ram, owned certain property. Dip Chand died in 1876 leaving him surviving his sons Kanhaiya Lal and Makhan Lal and a widow Musammat Naugi. The names of these persons were entered in the revenue records in regard to his half share of the property. Lajja Ram died in 1885. His share devolved on his nephews Makhan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. Makhan Lal died leaving a minor son, ' Ghanshiam Das, and a widow, Musammat Mul Kunwar. On the 16th of September 1898 Mul Kunwar sold one-half of the property to the plaintiff. On the 10th of January 1899 Kanhaiya Lal sold the other half. The plaintiff applied for the entry of his name in respect of the entire village, but his application was rejected on the 16th of August 1899 as regards the share which was recorded in the name of Musammat Naugi, the widow of Dip Chand. The plaintiff then sued for...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Mirzapur Vs. Dawan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All400
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff appellant to recover the amount of a mortgage bond, dated the 17th of April 1899. It was a registered document, and provided that the amount secured by it should be paid by instalments, and that in case of default the mortgagee would be entitled to take possession. It further provided that should there be any loss in the recovery of the amount due or in delivery of possession of the mortgaged land, the creditor would have power to realise the amount secured by the bond with interest at 1 per cent. from the date of the cause of action till repayment, either from the person or from the property, movable or immovable, of the debtor, or from the property mortgaged. The first instalment was payable on the 16th of December 1899. The present suit was brought on the 15th of December 1905. The Court below has dismissed the suit, holding it to be barred by limitation, and has referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu and anr. Vs. Faiyaz Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All394
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants to recover possession of a half share in 76 bighas and 5 biswas, which was mortgaged by two brothers Sher Singh and Khaman Singh in 1858. The plaintiffs' allegation is that the mortgage debt has been satisfied by the usufruct. The brothers are said to have been separate and each is said to have mortgaged his half share of the property. The equity of redemption of Sher Singh was brought to sale in execution of a simple money decree held by Deokishen and was purchased by Deokishen himself. He is dead and is represented by his widow Musammat Ganga, respondent No. 2. Both the mortgagors Sher Singh and Khaman Singh are dead. Khaman Singh was succeeded by his widow Musammat Gaura, who is also dead. The plaintiffs claim as heirs to Khaman Singh. It appears that Khaman's widow Musammat Gaura executed a simple money bond on the 21st of December 1883 in favour of Deokishen for the sum of Rs. 95. Deokishen go...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Das Vs. Ghasitey and Baij Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All467
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for pre-emption brought under the following circumstances. One Janki Das sold his share in certain property on the 10th of July 1905 to Baijnath, who is a stranger. On the 1st of June 1906, the present suit was instituted by Gobind Das, the plaintiff, to enforce his right of preemption in respect of this sale. On the 11th of June 1906, before the summons in the suit was served on Baijnath, the latter sold the property to Ghasitey, who is a co-sharer of equal degree with the plaintiff in the village. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption superior to that of Ghasitey, but the contention put forward on behalf of the plaintiff, which found favour with the Court below, was that, having regard to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the purchase by Ghasitey after the institution of the plaintiff's suit could not defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption. Ghasitey, we may m...
Tag this Judgment!Jangi Singh Vs. Chandar Mol
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All388
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor. The question which we have to decide is whether an application made by the respondent for a decree against the appellant under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act is time-barred. On the 5th of August 1893, the appellant executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the respondent. The money was payable on demand. The bond contained no personal covenant to pay. It was a registered instrument. The respondent, on the 25th of July 1900, instituted a suit for sale on the mortgage and also asked for a personal decree against the mortgagor. On the 16th of August 1900, the respondent got an ex parte decree for sale. No personal decree was passed against the mortgagor. The property was sold on the 20th of December 1906, and, the proceeds of the sale having proved insufficient to pay the amount due on the mortgage, the respondent applied fora decree under Section 90. The appellant raised an objection on the ground of limi...
Tag this Judgment!Fazl-ur-rahman and ors. Vs. Shah Muhammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All385
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. The sole question raised in this appeal is whether an application for execution presented by the appellants is or is not barred by limitation. The application was to execute two decrees which were passed on the 8th of March, 1901. Against these decrees appeals were preferred to this Court. When the appeals were called on for hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants informed the Court that he was unable to support the appeals, and they were accordingly dismissed, no costs being awarded to the respondents, as they were not represented. On this judgment decrees were passed by, this Court affirming the decrees of the lower Court. It is admitted that the appellants' present application is within time, if time is reckoned from the date of the decrees of this Court, but would be barred by limitation if time be computed to run from the date of the decrees of the Court of first instance. The lower Court has held that, as the appeals to this Court were not support...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Kunwari Vs. Ajudhia Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All379
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur allowing the appeal of an auction purchaser against the order of the Munsif setting aside a sale under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts out of which this application has arisen are that one Magan Sahu obtained an ex parte decree against the applicant on the 17th of September 1903. In execution of that decree a house was advertised for sale on the 13th of December 1906. On the 11th of December 1906 the judgment-debtor, Musammat Anandi Kunwari, applied to the Court under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex parte decree set aside. That application was entertained, and the 2nd of February 1907 was fixed for hearing. On the 12th of December the applicant deposited in Court Rs. 99 in part payment of the decretal amount and asked that the sale be postponed for one week, promising at the same time to deposit the balance of the decretal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »