Allahabad Court December 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Collector of Muttra as Manager of the Court of Wards of the Estate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.121
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the Court below was right in allowing to the appellant half his pleader's fees and not the full amount of certified, fees. In awarding costs as between party and party the Court was bounds to follow the provisions of Rules 456 and 457 of the Rules of the 4th of April 1894. Under the former rule a party entitled under a decree to be paid costs in a suit by another party shall not be entitled to a larger allowance for legal practitioners' fees in the suit than the fee mentioned in Rules 457 to 457 and Rule 457 prescribes a scale of fees, which is the scale now claimed, only in suits or appeals which are decided on the merits after contest. This case was not decided on the merits, after contest but the suit was withdrawn, tinder these circumstances, the Court below was fight in not allowing fees as in a suit decided on the merits after contest. The right scale of fees in such a case is the scale allowed by the Court below. We, therefore, dism...
Debi Mangal Prashad Singh Vs. Mahadeo Parshad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.208
1. The question raised in this appeal appears to us to be concluded by the decision in the case of Chhiddu v. Naubat 24 A. 67. The facts are these. On the 4th of January, 1893 the plaintiff, who was then a minor, instituted a suit by his mother Musammat Dharamraj Kunwari as guardian for partition of the estate to which he and the defendants were jointly entitled. In that case Musammat Sahibzid Kunwari, the grandmother of the plaintiff, applied under Section 32 of the old Code of Civil Procedure and was made a defendant in the suit. According to the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the plaint in this case, the entire family property was, by a decree of the 22nd of January 1894, which was upheld by the High Court on the 12th of June 1895, divided into four equal shares of which one share was allotted to the plaintiff, one share to Sahibzad Kunwari and one share each to Mahadeo Singh and Sitla Bakhsh Singh. The plaintiff is the grandson of Gaya Prasad Singh whose widow was Sahibzad ...
Mewa Singh and ors. Vs. Bhagwant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.252
Piggott, J.1. One Tirmal Singh, the owner of certain landed property, died childless leaving a widow Musammat Hanso. This lady left the village shortly after her husband's death and Budh Singh, brother of Tirmal Singh, entered into posession of the property admittedly, on behalf of Musammat Hanso, and under an agreement to restore the property to her possession in the event of her return. In the year 1881, Budh Singh executed a sale-deed transferring this properly to the predecessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants in this case. It has been found as a fact, and I am bound by that finding, that Musammat Hanso died in or about 1905 A.D.; by this time Budh Singh was dead and the reversioners entitled to succeed to the estate of Tirmal Singh, upon the death of the widow, were the plaintiff-respondent, Bhagwant Singh and his brother, Mohan Singh. They brought the present suit for recovery of the property transferred by the sale-deed of 1881. Mohan Singh died while the appeal was pendin...
Chatter Singh Vs. Ishri Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.336
Piggott, J.1. The cases Bradley v. Atkinson, 7 A. 899 : Harbansi v. Bholal A.W.N. 1890 p. 175 : Marcar v. Sigg 2 M. 239 at p. 246 : Dodhu v. Madhavarao Narayan Gadre 10 B. 110 marginally rioted appear sufficient authority for the following propositions: A lessor suing for the ejectment of his lessee as such is bound to prove either the lessee had been duly served with notice sufficient to satisfy the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act (No. IV of 1882), or had denied the title of the lessor prior to the institution of the suit. Mere denial of title on the part of the defendant in the suit itself is not sufficient, as the plaintiff is bound to prove that he had a complete cause of action when he came into Court. Further this objection, on the ground of want of proof of service of notice or other valid cause of action on the part of the plaintiff, is one which goes to the root of the plaintiff's case, and should be entertained by the Court even though not explicitly...
Muhammad Nur Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.21
Piggott, J.1. The applicants in this case have been convicted by a Magistrate of the 1st Class of an offence punishable under Section 401, Indian Penal Code, and the sentences passed on them have been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad on appeal. When these applicants were first placed before the Magistrate on March 17th, 1908, one Majida was in the dock with them as a co-accused. Evidence for the prosecution was recorded on this date and again on March 27th and on April 7th against the applicants along with Majida and the case came up for farther hearing on April 21st, no charge having yet been framed. On that date Majida was not placed in the dock along with the other accused persona and the Court was informed that the Public Prosecutor withdrew from the prosecution of the said Majida who was then tendered as a witness against the other accused. Objection was taken on behalf of the defence to the examination of Majida as a witness and the Magistrate said he would pa...
Shankar Vs. Musammat Dharmon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.77
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been executed in or about the year 1860, A.D., for Rs. 80 in favour of the ancestors of 17 persons who were impleaded as defendants, The majority of these either did not contest the suit at all or filed written statements admitting the plaintiff's claim. The defendants Nos. 3 and 6 contested the suit by pleading that the mortgage had been contracted about 125 or 150 years ago in favour of the persons named in the plaint and that the suit was time-barred. They made no admission in respect of the amount of the mortgage debt and they further pleaded that the plaintiff was not the heir of the original mortgagor. The Court of first instance accepted the evidence produced by the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The learned District Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit on a finding that it is barred by limitation. He says that he disbelieves the plaintiff's evidence and holds it not proved that any mortgage was execut...
SaiduddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Lala Ratan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.123
1. The only question in this Letters Patent appeal is the following: The predecessors-in-title-of the defendants claimed through one, Ghulam Nabi. Ghulam Nabi was one of the heirs of Ghulam Mustafa. Ghulam Mustafa had made a usufructuary mortgage in 1850. Ghulam Nabi without the other heirs redeemed the entire mortgage. For many years the predecessors-in-title of the defendants were in possession under the redemption of Ghulam Nabi. Some time about the year 1891, the predecessor-in-title of the defendant purchased at auction sale the property now in dispute. The auction Bale was held in pursuance of a mortgage decree Under the Transfer of Property Act and the property put up for sale was the property now in dispute. The learned Counsel, for the appellants admits that but for this sale they would be in no better position than the mortgagee from Ghulam Mustafa and the suit would not have been barred by limitation. But it is contended that when the defendants or their predecessors-in-titl...
Seth Nemi Chand Vs. Musammat Maluk Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.316
1. This is a reference under Regulation I of 1877 from the Commissioner of Ajmere. Two questions were submitted to us, namely, (1) whether deferred dower can form a valid consideration for the transfer of property daring the life-time of the husband who has not divorced the wife; and (2) whether the wife under the circumstances can demand payment of the deferred dower.2. In our opinion the answer to the first question should be given in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is that a wife is not entitled as of right to demand payment of deferred dower, but the husband is entitled if he pleases to pay the defendant her dower before it is due or to discharge and satisfy his obligation in any other legal way. We direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Ajmere. The costs of this Court will be certified and a memorandum thereof will be sent to the Commissioner....
Chhuttan Lal Vs. Shiam Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.766
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for sale upon a mortgage executed on the 31st of October, 1897, by Musammat Mul Kunwar and one Budh Sen. The appellant who was the fifth defendant to the suit is the purchaser of the mortgaged property. It is contended on his behalf that the mortgage-deed was not validly registered and cannot, therefore, affect the mortgaged property. The foundation for this contention is that the document was presented for registration by one Mazhar Ali who purported to hold a general power-of-attorney from Musammat Mul Kunwar. It is urged that the power-of-attorney was not registered and authenticated in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and that, therefore, the presentation of the mortgage-deed for registration was not a valid presentation. In our judgment this contention has no force. The mortgage deed was presented for registration by Mazhar Ali, who held a power-of-attorney which authori...
Durga Parshad Vs. Damodar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.767
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in conjunction with other members of his family carried on a business for the sale of gold and silver lace. His case is that on the 1st of August, 1903, the defendant sold to him through some brokers some bars of silver and took from the plaintiff Rs. 100 in cash by way of earnest money and promised to deliver the silver on a certain date; that subsequently the defendant took a further advance in respect of the sale of other bars of silver. The defendant failed to fulfil his contract and the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of damages for breach of his contract by the defendant. On the occasion of the agreement the defendant executed sattas in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, as we have said, carries on business along with other members of his family under the style of Durga Prasad. The defendant defended the suit on various grounds and, amongst others, that the agr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »