Allahabad Court April 1909 Judgments
Sarju and ors. Vs. District Judge of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All378; 2Ind.Cas.356
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant permission, under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards' Act, to guardian to mortgage the property of his wards, It appears that a decree was obtained against the minors on a mortgage executed by their father. The guardian of the minors who had obtained a certificate of guardianship made an application to the District Judge, under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards' Act (VIII of 1890), for permission to mortgage the property of the minors for RS. 800, the value of the property being alleged to be Rs. 1,600. The learned Judge refused to entertain the application on the ground that permission to mortgage should have been first obtained from the court executing the decree. He was of opinion that unless the Court executing the decree gave permission to the applicant to raise the amount of the mortgage decree by private sale or mortgage, the learned District Judge had no power to allow him to deal with the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.225
Alston, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jalaun, dated the 21st of December 1908, which the District Magistrate of Jalaun upheld in an order, dated the 11th of February 1909. The Sab-Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioner, Shiam Lal to furnish a personal bond of RS. 200, 'with one surety of a zamindar of Orai khas' in a like amount to be of good behaviour for a period of one year, or in default to be kept in rigorous imprisonment for that period. The difficulty, that I have had in dealing with the petition is due to the circumstance that although Shiam Lal had an appeal on the merits to the District Magistrate, under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order in appeal which is before me, says very little by way of criticism on the evidence in the case, with the result that the petitioner here complains that his appeal did not receive proper consideration, and asks for a hearing on the merits. This Court will not in...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanshiam Lal Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.364
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of proceedings relating to the execution of a decree passed by the Court of first instance on 2nd June, 1900, which was affirmed by the High Court on 19th January, 1903, and by the Privy Council on the 16th November, 1906. The decree of the Court of first instance awarded to the plaintiff the amount claimed by him with costs and future interest, but declared that if the appellant within 3 months of the date of the decree paid the principal sum claimed by the respondent, together with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum he would be exempted from further liability. The plaintiff, it appears, had claimed interest at the rate of 30 per cent per annum so that according to the decree of the Court of first instance if the judgment-debtor paid the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent. per annum within 3 months from the date of the decree of that Court, i. e., on or before the 2nd September, 1900, he would be exe...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Vs. Ghanshyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All379
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of proceedings relating to the execution of a decree passed by the court of first instance on 2nd June 1900 which was affirmed by the High Court on 19th January 1903, and by the Privy Council on the 16th November 1906. The decree of the court of first instance awarded to the plaintiff the amount claimed by him with costs and future interest, but declared that if the appellant, within three months of the date of the decree, paid the principal sum claimed by the respondent, together with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum he would be exempted from further liability. The plaintiff, it appears, had claimed interest at the rate of 30 per cent, per annum, so that according to the decree of the court of first instance if the judgment-debtor paid the principal amount with interest at 12 per cant, per annum within three months from the date of the decree of that court, i.e., on or before the 2nd S...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawan Singh Vs. Narottam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All444
Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff, who is a tenant of the defendants, zamindars, for demolition of certain constructions alleged to have been made on a public thoroughfare and for the widening of that thoroughfare for the passage of carts. The court of first instance decreed the claim but the lower appellate court has dismissed it. It was found by the court of first instance, and it is admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellant, that the pathway in question is a public thoroughfare. The alleged obstruction to it is therefore a public nuisance. It is a well-known rule that a private action cannot be maintained in respect of a public nuisance save by a person who suffers particular damage beyond what is suffered by him in common with all other persons affected by the nuisance (Pollock on Torts, VII Edn., p. 395). It is not alleged in this case that the plaintiff has suffered any particular damage. On the contrary, it has been fou...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Har Prasad Vs. Seth Radha Krishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.105
1. This execution appeal arises out of the following facts A mortgage-decree having been obtained, and the mortgaged property having been sold, the proceeds proved insufficient, and a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act was granted to the decree-holder to realise the balance of the mortgage debt from the property of Ganga Prasad. In execution of that decree seven houses were attached. An objection was taken by Seth Radha Kishan, the minor judgment-debtor. The objection applied to three out of the seven houses, and the objection was that he had acquired these three houses under a deed of gift by his father in his lifetime, and that accordingly they were not liable to be sold in execution of the decree. An issue was framed as to the genuineness of the deed of gift. The decision was in favour of the judgment-debtor and the property was released. Just before the sale the judgment debtor came in with a fresh objection, that part of the property which was going to be sold...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawan Singh Vs. Narottam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.365
Banerji, J.1. The suit which, has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff, who is a tenant of the defendants, zamindars, for demolition of certain constructions alleged to have been made on a public thoroughfare and for the widening of that thoroughfare for the passage of carts. The Court of first instance decreed the claim but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it. It was found by the Court of first instance, and it is admitted by the learned vakil for the appellant that the pathway in question is a public thoroughfare. The alleged obstruction to it is, therefore, a public nuisance. It is a well-known rule that a private action cannot be maintained in respect of a public nuisance save by a person who suffers particular damage beyond what is suffered by him in common with all other persons affected by the nuisance (Pollock on Torts, VII Edn., p. 395). It is not alleged in this case that the plaintiff has suffered any particular damage. On the contrary, it has been f...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Choube and ors. Vs. Musammat Simirkha Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.144
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for redemption of a mortgage, dated Magh Badi 13th, 1293 fasli (1886) made by Nimar, father of Gobardhan, the sixth defendant. The property mortgaged is a tenancy at fixed rates and the amount secured by the mortgage is Rs. 99-15-0. By the terms of it the mortgagee is to remain in possession and enjoy the rents and profits in lieu of interest, and redemption is to take place on payment of the principal amount in the month of Jeth. The plaintiffs are transferees from the sixth defendant Gobardhan and as such seek to redeem. The defence to the suit was that there were two other mortgages, the amounts secured by which the plaintiffs were bound to pay before they could redeem the mortgage in question.2. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiffs' sale deed being a registered document took priority over the two mortgages set up by the defendants which are unregistered and that the plaintiffs had no notice of those mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Sahai Vs. Musammat Rai Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.902
Karamat Hussain, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, under Section 58(a) of the Agra Tenancy Act for the ejectment of Ganga Sahai and his father as their sub-tenants. Ganga Sahai defended the suit and pleaded that he was not the sub-tenant of the plaintiffs and that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to encertain the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs appealed to the Commissioner on the 17th of September 1907. The office reported on the 18th of September 1907 that the case was within the jurisdiction of the District Judge and not of the Commissioner. The Commissioner fixed the 8th of October 1907 for the determination of that point and came to the conclusion that the appeal lay to the District Judge. He, therefore, returned the memorandum of appeal on the 8th of October 1907 for presentation to the proper Court. The Civil Courts were closed from the 9th of October to the 10th of November 1907,...
Tag this Judgment!Bachchi Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Majid-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.587
Alston, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of some importance which so far as I have been able to ascertain is not covered by any direct recent authority. Ten plaintiffs, of whom Kamta Pershad was one, brought a suit in Civil Court to have it declared that they were the proprietors of a certain piece of land from which they alleged they had been wrongly ejected, and they farther asked to be put into possession again. The defendant was one Majid-ullah Khan, a zamindar, who in the year 1904 had sued the said Kamta Preshad in the Revenue Court for possession of this very piece of land and obtained a decree against him, and it was under this decree which had been confirmed in the Commissioner's Court that the Amin had ejected the present plaintiffs. The decree was sought for and obtained on the ground that the land in question was rent-free land which the zamindar was entitled to resume possession of. The learned Subordinate Judge framed three legal issues: (1) whether the suit is c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »