Allahabad Court July 1908 Judgments
Mujib-ullah Vs. Umed Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All499
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether an. application for execution made on the 13th of January 1906, is barred by the provisions of Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the lower Courts, as also a learned Judge of this Court, have held that it is not so barred. The circumstances of the case are somewhat peculiar. It is an order of the 10th of February 1904, upon which the real question in my opinion turns. It appears that an application for execution was made by the decree-holder, and the property was attached and directed to be sold. A proclamation for sale was issued, but the sale proved abortive owing to the absence of bidders. Thereupon the decree-holder was required to pay amin's fees and also the fees for a further sale notification. It seems to me that this was not a proper order in view of Rule 388 of the Rules of Court of the 4th April 1894. That rule provides, amongst other things, that no fee shall be chargeable for serving or executing any...
Tag this Judgment!imtiaz Fatima Vs. Muhammad Kamil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All557
Arthur Wilson, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals from the decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudb, dated the 7th of September 1904, and the 19th of January 1985, modifying or reversing those of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi. These decrees arise out of two suits, and the suits in question will become intelligible from the following pedigree: Shaikh Muhammad Basawan. | ------------------------------------------------ | | (Senior) (Junior)Sheikh Kadir Shaikh Muhammad Bakhsh. Bakhsh. | | | ---------------------------------------------------- Shaikh Ka- | | | | | |rim Bakhsh. Shaikh Mu- Muhammad Sheikh Mu- Musammat Musammat Musammat | hammad Mubarak, hammad Bhagbhari, Lehaz Imtiyaz | Amir, died died in Ahmad, died on 24th Fatima, Fatima, | in October 1891. died 24 January died issue- wife of Mir | 1890. | years ago. 1888. less. Subhan Ali | | | | of Bilgram, | | | | Plaintiff. | | | ------------------------------- | | | | | | | Murtaza | | Muham- Musammat Musamm...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Vs. Kallu Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All236; 2Ind.Cas.213
Richards and Karamat, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application by Musammat Janki for a certificate under Act No. VII of 1889. Musammat Janki is the widow of one Shadi Ram, and prime facie she would be the person entitled to a certificate under the Act. Her application however was opposed by Kallu Mal and others who filed objections setting up a will alleged to have been made by the deceased. A draft was produced which is a draft of a somewhat elaborate will. Lachman Sarup was produced on behalf of the objectors, and deposed that he had written out this draft (which we will hereafter refer to as ex. A.) at the dictation of the deceased. He says that he explained the contents of the will to him, that it too him two days to prepare the document, and that at the close of each day he read it to the deceased. A doctor named Ram Chandar was also produced and he corroborated Lachman Sarup and said that four or five days before his death the deceased handed him Ex. A, which, he said, was ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Prasad Vs. Salig Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All5; (1923)ILR45All336
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The meaning of a gift in the will of one Kedar Nath is the only question in this appeal. Kedar Nath made a will on the 22nd of June 1888. The will is very simple in its character. By it he gave to his wife all his property for her life, and after her death, he declared that Lalta Prasad, his adopted son, should be the malik, or owner, of the property. The testator's wife predeceased him. He died on the 3rd of September 1904, and upon his death the defendants, who are his sister's sons, took possession of his property. Thereupon the suit put of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by Lalta Prasad. He claimed the property under the gift contained in the will of Kedar Nath. The Court of first instance held that he was entitled to it as designata persona under the will, and that it was immaterial to find whether or not he was the adopted son of Kedar Nath. It did, however, consider that question and came to the conclusion that the adoption w...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu and ors. Vs. Ram Chandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All497
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether persons who claimed to be reversionary heirs of a deceased mortgagor can, during the life-time of the mortgagor's widow, redeem a mortgage executed by the deceased. Diwan Singh was the mortgagor, and he executed the mortgage in question in favour of one Durga. His widow Musammat Earn Dei, is now in possession of the property. Ram Chandar, the defendant appellant, is a purchaser from Durga. No authority is shown for the proposition that a reversionary heir, who may or may not according to the circumstances overcome into possession of an estate, is entitled to redeem. The plaintiffs have no present interest in the property. Their interest is contingent upon their surviving the mortgagor's widow. The Court of first instance gave a decree for redemption and directed that on payment of the mortgage debt the plaintiffs should be put into possession. Now it is obvious that the plaintiffs have no right to posses...
Tag this Judgment!inda Kunwar Vs. Kashi Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All490
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a share in the village of Kanai Shibnagar in the district of Bareilly and for mesne profits, The facts are these. One Newal Rai was the owner of this as well as other property. He died before the year 1872, leaving a widow Musammat Jaika and two daughters, namely, Musammat Bilaso and Musammat Hulaso. One Banarsi Das purchased the property in suit at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against Musammat Jaika. The defendants Kashi Prasad and Bssdeo Sahai are the brothers of Bandrsi Das, who is dead. Five kachwansis of the property is in the possession of the defendants 3 to 8, and as to this portion the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed and we are not concerned with it in the present appeal. Musammat Jaika died on the 27th of November 1878, and after her death, her daughters Bilaso and Hulaso, sold of the property to Musammat Lachman and three others. A suit was brought by the vendor and vendees for possession...
Tag this Judgment!Chandar Shekhar Vs. Kundan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All3; 1Ind.Cas.554
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal is against an order of an Assistant Collector whereby he rejected the application of the plaintiff for partition of certain property. There were four brothers jointly entitled to certain property. They were Sheo Ram, Sheo Shankar, Kesho Ram and Sewak Ram. Sheo Shankar died childless, and upon his death the three surviving brothers became entitled equally to the property in question. Kesho Ram in the year 1904 applied for partition of the property and also brought a suit for partition in the Civil Court, the defendants to that suit being Kundan Lal and Kanhaia Lal, the sons of Sheo Ram, and the present plaintiff Chandar Shekhar the son of Sewak Ram. It was agreed in that suit that Kesho Ram's one-third share should alone be partitioned, and that the shares of the defendants should remain joint. On the 2nd of March 1906, the plaintiff made the application out of which this appeal has arisen for partition of his share, and his applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Gorakh Prasad Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All547
Aikman, J.1. I agree with the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in Nepal Rai v. Debi Prasad (1905) I.L.R. 27 All. 447, which is against the appellant's contention. In my opinion the view expressed by the Taxing officer is right....
Tag this Judgment!Atwari and anr. Vs. Maiku Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All1; 1Ind.Cas.553
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Fanukhabad under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these: A decree was made by a Court of Small Causes in a suit cognizable by that Court. As the decree-holder sought to realize the amount of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable property, the Court of Small Causes sent the decree to the Munsif's Court for execution under the provisions of Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure, An application for execution was accordingly made in the Munsif's Court. Objections were raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor. Those objections having been over ruled, the judgment-debtor appealed to the District Judge. In his Court the question was raised whether an appeal lay from the order of the Munsif. It was contended before him that as the suit was of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes the proceedings in execution taken in the Munsif's Court should be deemed...
Tag this Judgment!C.E. Grey, Official Assignee Vs. Hazari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)ILR30All486
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. The respondent decree-holder obtained a decree against Dhani Ram and his son, Lachmi Narain on the 2nd of May 1907. In execution of his decree, property belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold on the 27th and the 28th May 1907. The judgment-debtors were declared insolvent by the Calcutta High Court and vesting orders in respect of their property were passed in the case of Dhani Ram on the 17th May 1907 and in the case of Lachmi Narain on the 29th May 1907. The insolvents' schedules were not filed until the 7th April 1908. The appellant, who is the Official Assignee, applied to the Court below for payment to him of the proceeds of the sale. The Court below relying on the ruling of this Court in Kashi Prasad v. Miller (1885) I.L.R. 7 All. 752 refused the application.2. The Official Assignee comes here in appeal. An objection is taken that no appeal lies, on the ground that he is not the representative of the judgment-debtors within the meaning of Section 24...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »