Allahabad Court March 1909 Judgments
Benode Behari Mullick Vs. Sita Ram Naik Daji Kalia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.666
1. The decision of this appeal depends on the interpretation of the Will of one Ram Chander Maulik, dated the 9th of April 1897. By that Will Ram Chander Maulik appointed his nephew Shambhu Nath Maulik as the principal executor and he also named three other relatives as executors. Shambhu Chander took out probate of the Will. The property left by Ram Chander Maulik consisted of house property and Government promissory notes. One of those houses was mortgaged by Shambhu Chander to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the mortgage included Government securities of the face value of Rs. 2,000. After the death of Shambhu Chander the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained a decree for sale against his son, the third defendant. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was thereupon brought by Benode Behari Maulik, one of the executors named in the Will, for a declaration that the mortgaged property is property of which Ram Chander Maulik made an endowment under his Will to the god Shiva and to a Dh...
Tag this Judgment!Mangal Sen and anr. Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All359
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. In the suit oat of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff Mangal Sen sued his father Kewal Ram and his minor brother Nand Ram for partition of the joint family property including both moveable and immoveable property. The lower appellate court, as also the court of first instance, decreed the plaintiff's claim. An appeal has been preferred and the only question which has been pressed in argument before us in the appeal is in respect of the order for partition of the moveable property. In the defence, which was filed to the suit the defendants alleged that Kewal Ram gave away the whole of the moveable property of the family to his son Nand Ram and that therefore the plaintiff could not have partition of the moveable property. It has been found by the court below that the moveable property sought to be partitioned was part of the joint family property and that the gift which was wade by Kewal Ram to his son Nand Ram was made not from affectio...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Ram Vs. Mangal Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.797
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff, Mangal Sen, sued his father Kewal Ram and his minor brother Nand Ram for partition of the joint family property including both movable and immovable property. The lower appellate Court, as also the Court of first instance, decreed the plaintiffs' claim. An appeal has been preferred and the only question which has been pressed in argument before us in the appeal is in respect of the order for partition of the movable property. In the defence which was filed to the suit the defendants alleged that Kewal Ram gave away the whole of the movable property of the family to his son Nand Ram and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not have partition of the movable property. It has been found by the Court below that the movable property sought to be partitioned was part of the joint family property and that the gift which was made by Kewal Ram to his son Nand Ram was made not from affection but from vindictive motives, namely, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Das Vs. Ramautar Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All352
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage and an application by the decree-holder for a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. On the 6th of June, 1893, a mortgage was executed by Musammat Lakhpati Kuar in favour of Jamna Das. The money was recoverable in 10 years. The mortgage deed contains sundry provisions providing for earlier realisation of the money secured in certain events., The property mortgaged was partly zamindari property and partly mortgagee rights in zamindari: property. The principal amount was the sum of Rs. 40,000. On the 24th of November 1896, the mortgagor sold the entire mortgaged property to the defendant, Pandit Ramautar Pande, for the sum of Rs. 44,000 out of which Rs. 4,000 only passed and the balance was left in the hands of Pandit Ramautar Pailde for payment of the mortgage-money due to Jamna Das. On the 9th of February 1900, Jamna Das sued for sale of the mortgaged property and for a personal decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Gomti and anr. Vs. Mundi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.517
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows:On 13th November 1901, that is to say, prior to the coming into operation of the present Agra Tenancy Act, the defendants in the present suit sued for profits. The plaintiffs in the present suit were defendants, and they pleaded that although the plaintiffs wore recorded they were not co-sharers. The suit for profits was dismissed. The defendants in the present suit then applied in the Revenue Court for partition. The Revenue Court referred the plaintiff's to the Civil Court to have the question of title determined. The present suit was accordingly instituted. The plaintiffs seek now to rely upon the decision of the Revenue Court in the suit for profits as being res judicata. Under the old Rent Act, the Revenue Court could not try a question of title. There are provisions in the present Tenancy Act enabling the Revenue Court in certain oases to adopt the prescribed procedure and to try questions of proprietary title. I...
Tag this Judgment!Bachan Lal Vs. Musammat Pooran Kunar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.529
Richards, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent on a thika. Under the terms of thika, the thikadar had to pay a sum of Rs. 700 odd to the Government for revenue. He was bound to pay Rs. 200 odd to the plaintiff. The rent was a fixed rent, and tinder the terms of the thika, the thikadar realised the entire rents from the tenants. The only questions argued before me were: (1) was the defendant entitled to have the suit dismissed. The Government remitted the revenue, and the rents of the ordinary tenants had to be remitted by the zamindar as a consequence of the remission of revenue by the Government. The defendant contends that he was unable to realise from the tenants, and he accordingly claims that he should not be called upon to pay the rent reserved by the thika. This was the main point argued in the appeal. (2) The only other point was the question of interest. It is quite true that if the defendant were an ordinary tenant and were sued by the zamindar for rent, the fact that the...
Tag this Judgment!Jodhishtar Vs. Sannu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.518
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a chabutra and for demolition of certain structures. One Musammat Waziran was made a defendant in the original suit. It was stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that part of her share was outside the place in dispute and that she did not join with the plaintiff in the suit. Before the suit was heard, Musammat Waziran asked to be made a plaintiff instead of a defendant, and an order was made accordingly. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, Musammat Waziran, in the events which had happened, being one of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed but by an oversight neglected to make Musammat Waziran a respondent. Before the appeal was heard but after the period for presenting an appeal had expired, the defendant appellants applied to make Musammat Waziran a respondent. The Court refused the application. The appeal proceeded, and the decree of the Court of first instance was reversed. The res...
Tag this Judgment!Gulsher Khan and anr. Vs. Najib-ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All348
Aikman, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench of three Judges on account of conflicting decisions of this Court upon the main question which arises in the appeal. That question, shortly stated, is whether a co-sharer' in an agricultural holding is barred by the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act from maintaining a suit for declaration of his rights in the holding. In the case Achhey Lal v. Janhi Prasad (1906) I.L.R. 29 All. 66 it was held that a suit of this nature could not be maintained having regard to the provisions of the section quoted. In the cases Ashiq Husain v. Asghari Begam (1907) I.L.R. 30 All. 90, and Ayub Ali Khan v. Mashuq Ali Khan Weekly Notes, 1908, p. 281, a different view was taken and it was held that the section does not preclude a plaintiff from obtaining by suit a declaration of his right to a share in a holding. In the last two cases it does not appear that the decision in Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad was cited and no reference is made to it in ei...
Tag this Judgment!Mohar Bhagat and ors. Vs. Kamta Prashad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.528
Richards, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting and important question. The facts are shortly as follows:2. On the 7th April 1904, three deeds were executed: (1) a sale-deed of 3 1/2 anna share in Mauza Gubni and a 10 pie share in Mauza Bhitni in favour of Adit Singh and others, (2) a sale-deed of two decrees in favour of Adit Singh alone and (3) a mortgage by Adit Singh of his share in the purchased property to secure the price of the decrees. The present suit was instituted on foot of the mortgage. The representatives of the respondents, Kamta Prashad and Girja Prashad, brought a suit for pre-emption basing their claim upon the sale to Adit Singh and others of the 7th of April 1904. They did not make the mortgagees under the mortgage from Adit Singh parties. The mortgage is, however, a registered deed. The lower appellate Court finds that when the defendants respondents pre-empted the property, they had notice of the mortgage. Mr. Sital Prashad, on behalf of the respondents, contend...
Tag this Judgment!Najibulla and ors. Vs. Gulsher Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.594
Aikman, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a bench of three Judges on account of conflicting decisions of this Court upon the main question which arises in the appeal. That question shortly stated is, whether a co-sharer in an agricultural holding is barred by the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act from maintaining a suit for a declaration of his rights in the holding. In the case, Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad 29 A. 66, it was held that a suit of this nature could not be maintained having regard to the provisions of the section quoted. In the cases, Asliq Husain v. Anghari Begam 30 A. 90 and Ayub Ali Khan v. Mashuq Ali Khan 1908 A.W.N. 281; 31 A. 51, (1909) 1 I.C. 593 (ante), a different view was taken and it was held that the section does not preclude a plaintiff from obtaining by suit a declaration of his right to a share in a holding. In the last two cases it does not appeal that the decision in Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad 29 A. 66 was cited, and no reference is made to it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »