Allahabad Court June 1908 Judgments
Bhawani Ram and anr. Vs. Hazarimal and Panna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All538
Aikman and Griffin, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. The plaintiffs Bhawani Ram and Jawahir Lal brought the suit on the allegation that they with one Rakhab Das were proprietors of a banking and commission firm at Secundrabad, and that Hazari Mal, the principal defendant, was indebted to the firm. Rakhab Das did not join in the suit, and was made a pro forma defendant. The suit was filed on the 16th of August 1906. The defendant Hazari Mal filed a written statement on the 5th of September 1906, In that he took no objection to want of parties. Upwards of six months afterwards, namely, on the 20th of March 1907, he took objection to the effect that the two minor sons of Rakhab Das ought to have been joined as parties to the suit and that; in their absence the suit could not proceed. Thereon the plaintiffs in order to remove this objection, though not admitting that the minors were necessary parties, applied for their names to be added, and this was done. Objection was the...
Tag this Judgment!Jarbandhan Vs. Uman Kunwari and Ram Raji Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All479
Banerji, Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand made under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit for pre-emption.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the 30th of April 1906, but the lower appellate Court set aside the decree of that Court and remanded the case on the 27th of March 1907. From this order the present appeal was preferred on the 29th of June 1907. Before, however, the appeal was filed, the Court of first instance had carried but the order of remand and decreed the claim on the 20th of May 1907. Hence it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the appeal cannot be entertained. As the rulings on the point are conflicting, the case has been referred to a Full Bench.3. The first question we have to determine is whether an appeal lies from an order of remand passed under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if before the filing of the appeal the suit has been decided in compliance with the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Bithal Das and ors. Vs. Jamna Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All476
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these : On the 7th of October 1901 an exparte decree on a mortgage was passed in favour of the appellants. Before, however, the decree was made, the appellants had obtained an injunction under Section 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondents from realising certain money deposited in Court to their credit. After the passing of the ex parte decree the appellants withdrew from Court Rs. 19,041 out of the sum mentioned above in satisfaction of their decree. The decree, however, was set aside on an application made by the respondents under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the 9th of July 1904. The suit was retried; and on the 17th of September 1904 the Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 17,711-7-0. This decree was affirmed by the High Court on the 18th of December 1906. On the 17th of September 1907 the respondents made an application to the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Karan Singh Vs. Bechan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-12-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All447
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for profits brought against the lambardar by the mortgagee of a recorded co-sharer. The name of the plaintiff is also recorded in the revenue papers. The claim was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff had no 'proprietary right and that the defendant was in adverse proprietary possession. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in part and this decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The learned Judge was of opinion that, having regard to Section 201, Sub-section (3), of the Agra Tenancy Act, the Court could not go behind the entry in the revenue record and was not competent to try the question of proprietary right raised on behalf of the defendant. The correctness of this decision is impugned in this appeal. Section 201 of the Agra Tenancy Act provides for suits for profits brought by two descriptions of plaintiffs: (1) those whose names are not recorded as having the proprietary right entitling them to bring the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Partap Singh Vs. the Delhi and London Bank, Ld.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All393
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Court below refusing the appellant's application for the appointment of a receiver. The respondent Bank, which is not represented here, held a decree against the appellant for Rs. 35,000. In execution of this decree the respondent Bank attached two decrees held by the appellant, the aggregate amount of which is said to be upwards of a lakh of rupees. The Bank applied for sale of the decrees. The judgment-debtor presented an application to the lower Court stating that if the decrees were sold, the result would be that both he and the Bank would be losers, and he prayed the Court to appoint a receiver to realize the amounts of his decrees attached by the Bank. The learned Subordinate Judge in his order under appeal states that the judgment-debtor's case is a pitiable one, as there is very little likelihood of the decrees fetching a suitable price at the auction sale. But he was of opinion that Section 503 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Jumai Kanjar Vs. Abdul Karim Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All536
Aikman and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. The Courts below have held that the present application to execute is barred by limitation. The application to execute was presented on the 24th of January 1907. The last preceding application was made on the 15th of January 1904. On the 21st of January 1904, the Court passed an order that notice should issue to the judgment-debtor under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The notice was actually issued on the 25th January 1904. Article 179 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act allows three years from 'the date of issuing notice under the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 248.' If the date of issuing notice be taken to be the date on which it is actually issued, the application is within time. But if it be taken to be the date on which the Court passed an order for issue of notice under Section 248, the application is too late. There is a great conflict of opinion in the different High Courts as to the meaning of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.421
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises in for ejectment under Sections 58 and 63 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The facts which are somewhat complicated are as follows. The defendant-appellant purchased at auction in 1900 the rights and interests of one Data Ram in the village Birehru. This Data Ram was the zamindar of 4 shares out of 100 shares in the village. The revenue of the village was assigned to the predecessor-in title of the plaintiff. At the settlement which preceded the settlement of 1875, Data Ram refused to accept the assessment offered by the Settlement Officer and accordingly settlement was made with the assignees of the Government revenue who were called muafidars, Data Ram and other persons similarly circumstanced being allowed a malikana allowance and permitted to continue to hold possession of their sir land. At the Settlement of 1874 and 1875 Data Ram and others asked that settlement should be made with them. The Assistant Collector refused to grant their application and by an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›