Allahabad Court February 1909 Judgments
Ram Dhani Sahu Vs. Lalit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All328
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an application by Ramdhani Sahu, the appellant, for an extension of the time fixed by this Court for payment of a mortgage debt under a decree of the 23rd of July 1908. By that decree the appellant was directed to pay a prior mortgage on or before the 5th of November 1908. Owing to delay in obtaining a copy of the judgment, the date which was so fixed was allowed to pass over without payment. The present application is now made to this Court to extend the time for payment.2. A preliminary objection is raised to the application to the effect that the proper court to which this application should be made is the court of first instance. We think that this preliminary objection is well-founded. The question as to the proper court to which such an application should be presented was considered by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, in the case of Sheo Narain v. Chunni Lal (1900) I.L.R. 23 All. 88. In the judgment in that ...
Tag this Judgment!Girwar Prashad and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.306
1. This is an application asking the Court to quash a commitment which has been made by the Munsif of Haveli, Aligarh, acting under Section 478 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point of law contended before us is that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to make the commitment. It appears that on the 8th of January 1907, a suit was instituted by one Ram Lal, in the Court of the Munsif of Hathras. It was based on two Promissory Notes said to have been executed by Narsingh Das. Narsingh Das did not appear to defend the suit and a decree was made ex parte against him by the Munsif of Hathras. Proceedings were then taken to execute the decree and as Narsingh Das resided within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Haveli, the proceedings were transferred to the Munsif of Haveli. In that Court, a warrant of arrest was taken out against Narsingh Das. He was arrested and put into Jail. From Jail he applied to the Munsif of Hathras alleging that the summons in the original suit had never been serv...
Tag this Judgment!FayazuddIn and ors. Vs. AminuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.354
John Stanley, C.J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs for joint possession of certain land and for the demolition of buildings constructed on property alleged to be joint property. The suit was referred to arbitration but the reference proved abortive inasmuch as the arbitrator refused to act. Subsequently, on the 30th of August 1906, the plaintiffs and 6 out of 19 defendants filed an application to have their differences referred to arbitration and in this application one Jairaj Singh was nominated one of the arbitrators by the plaintiffs, Muniruddin was nominated by the defendants and Hargobind was nominated by both parties as umpire. It is said that the defendants, who took no part in this application to the Court, had no interest in the subject matter of the disputes and were, therefore, not necessary parties to the arbitration proceedings. Whether this is so or not it is unnecessary to consider in the view which I take of the point involve...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotkan Singh and ors. Vs. Jhunku Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All325
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of property the subject of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 25th of August 1888. The plaintiff 2nd party, who are the mortgagors, sold their interest in the equity of redemption to the plaintiff No. 1 on the 23rd June 1905 and the plaintiff No. 1 deposited the mortgage debt, Rs. 1,800 in court under Section 83, Act IV of 1882, to the account of the defendant but the defendant refused to accept the same. The properties mortgaged are 12 bigha of sir in Badhia and fractional shares in 5 villages, viz. Tirhabir and 4 others. The defendant obtained possession of the sir and the share of Tirhabir on the execution of the mortgage, but he did not get possession of the shares in the other villages till April 1893, i.e. 4 years and 7 months after the date of the mortgage.2. The principal ground upon which the defendant refused to accept the amount deposited in court was that the mortgage deed contained a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nand Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.211
Aikman, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of a Magistrate of the first Class directing the applicants to give each a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 100 to keep the peace for one year. An examination of the record shows that the Magistrate has not complied with the procedure prescribed in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The summonses issued to the applicants were not accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 112 as is required by Section 115 of the Code. Had the summonses to the applicants contained the substance of the information upon which the Magistrate acted, I might have overlooked this defect, but the summonses too are not in accord with the form set out in Schedule V No. 12 of the Code. I am unable to say that the applicants have not been prejudiced by the neglect of the Magistrate to comply with the provisions of the law. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate, dated the 10th of October 1...
Tag this Judgment!Tota Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.220
Aikman, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun, directing the prosecution of the applicant for offences under Sections 193, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences are alleged to have been committed by the applicant as plaintiff in a suit for profits brought under the provisions of the Tenancy Act in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the first Class. In my opinion the order of the District Magistrate was entirely without jurisdiction and cannot be justified either under Section 195 or 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I quash the order of the District Magistrate dated the 2nd of November 1908. Any proceeding instituted against the applicant under that order must be dropped....
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Prashad Tiwari and anr. Vs. Dharamraj Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.390
1. The matter for decision in this second appeal is whether the Lower Appellate Court has put a right construction upon the terms of the Wajib-ul-arz. The Wajib-ul-arz runs as follows: 'If any co-sharer wishes to sell or mortgage his share in this mahal he must do so first to karabatdaran kareebi (near relations), then to near co-sharers in the thok (hissa daran hareebi thok), then to other co-sharers of the thok (hissa daran digar thok)'. As the word kareebi in the Wajib-il-arz before us is used together with the word 'karabatdaran' we think that the same meaning should underlie both words. Also if we look to the probable intention of the framers of the Wajib-ul-arz, we think that their intention was that the property as far as possible should remain in members of the same family and the construction put upon the Wajib-ul-arz would harmonize with this construction. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Jhunku Singh Vs. Chatkan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.221
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of property, the subject of a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 25th of August 1888. The plaintiffs, 2nd party, who are the mortgagors, sold their interest in the equity of redemption to the plaintiff No. 1 on the 23rd June 1905, and the plaintiff No. 1 deposited the mortgage debt, Rs. 1,800, in Court under Section 83, Act IV of 1882, to the account of the defendant, but the defendant refused to accept the same. The properties mortgaged are 12 bighas of sir in Badhia and fractional shares in 5 villages, viz., Tirhabir and 4 others. The defendant obtained possession of the sir and of the share of Tirhabir 011 the execution of the mortgage, but he did not get possession of the shares in the other villages till April 1893, i.e., 4 years and 7 months after the date of the mortgage.2. The principal ground upon which the defendant refused to accept the amount deposited in Court was that the mortgage deed contained a provision for the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Khaliq Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All323
Richards and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were proprietors of certain plots of laud which are specified in a list at the end of the plaint, They also asked to have a certain decree for rent granted by the revenue court set aside. It appears that as far back as the year 1872, the defendants or their representatives were recorded as proprietors and the plaintiff's in the present suit were receded as cultivators in respect of the holdings the subject-matter of the present suit. In the year 1902, the plaintiffs made an application to correct the entry in the revenue papers. This application was refused. In 1903, a similar application was made with a like result. The defendants in the present suit then applied in the revenue court to have the rent payable by the plaintiffs enhanced and the application was allowed in March 1904. In the year 1906 the defendants sued the plaintiffs in the revenue court for arrears of enhanced rent....
Tag this Judgment!Babu Bhikham Singh Alias Babu Gaya Singh and ors. Vs. Shankar Dayal Si ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.345
1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The defendants pleaded that before the mortgage was redeemed a number of other mortgages or charges should also be redeemed. The first court gave the plaintiffs a decree for redemption but on the condition that they should redeem not only the mortgages of the 9th July 1887, another mortgage of the same date and a third mortgage of the 29th May 1893, but they must also redeem four other mortgages, namely, one dated the 7th September 1893, another dated the 21st July 1894, another dated the 2nd October 1894, and a fourth dated the 13th August 1897. The lower appellate Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance by permitting the plaintiffs to redeem on payment of the amount due on the three mortgages first mentioned above and which are admitted in the plaint. The present appeal is brought by the defendants against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. The four documents dated respectively the 7th September 1893, the 21s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »