Allahabad Court May 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.
Mohammad Abdullah Khan Vs. Bank Instalment Company, Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.379
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent who is the official liquidator of the Bank Instalment Company, Limited, Meerut, to recover the sums of Rs. 954-9-0 from the appellant. The plaint as first presented showed that the plaintiff at first based his claim on a promissory note for Rs. 1,500 payable on demand with interest. The promissory note is dated the 8th of June 1896. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was alleged that certain sums of money had been paid on different dates towards principal and interest. Paragraph 3 of the plaint was, however, amended, an In the amendment the plaintiff further alleged that on the 25th of May 1906 the present appellant Abdullah Khan had agreed in writing to pay the amount of the balance due within the period of one month, that this one month's grace was granted to him, but the money had not been paid and hence a cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff on the 25th of June 1906 on which date the period of grace expired. The def...
Jadoo Chaube Vs. Bhagwat Chaube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.516
Alston, J.1. The learned vakil who appeared in support of this appeal has endeavoured in a long and able argument to persuade me that I ought to deprive a would-be mortgagee, who had lent money to a would-be mortgagor, of the decree which both the lower Courts have given him for the return of the money which he paid in the belief that he was acquiring a mortgage. The mortgagor after taking the money had refused to fulfil his part of the contract and put the mortgagee into possession of the property; and as the mortgage was unregistered the mortagagee could not enforce it. The learned vakil's contention was that his client's conduct may have been iniquitous, but. the iniquity was one which the law permitted him to perpetrate. In spite of the able and ingenious manner in which the appeal has been argued, I am glad to be able to say that I remain unconvinced. The usufructuary mortgage was executed subsequent to an amendment of the transfer of Property Act which makes it necessary for a mo...
Kalyan Singh Vs. Damber Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.626
1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree under the following circumstances. One Sri Kishen Das obtained in the year 1902 a decree for possession and costs against several defendants. Possession has been delivered to him but the decree subsists as a decree for costs. Among the numerous defendants against whom the decree for costs was passed was the respondent Dambar Singh. In 1907 he obtained a decree for profits against Sri Kishan Das and in execution of that decree he attached the decree for costs held by Sri Kishan Das to which we have referred above. In his capacity as attaching creditor he has applied for execution of the decree held by Sri Kishen Das and is now seeking to recover the amount of it from the appellant Kalyan Singh who has purchased some property from Ram Chandar, one of the judgment-debtors under Sri Kishen's decree. It is contended on behalf of Kalyan Singh that as Damber Singh is himself a judgment-debtor to the decree which he is n...
Kalyan and ors. Vs. Tika Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.353
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Umrao Gir was the owner of certain zamindari share in mauza Karanpur. He first executed a lease in favour of Ram Bakhsh. In 1872 he again executed a perpetual lease in his favour. Ram Bakhsh had five sons, namely Kallian, Jha Ram, Nirmil, Bhawani and Phullu. Tika Ram, son of Nirmal, purchased the zamindari right of Umrao Gir from his disciple and brought an action against Kallian and the descendants of Jha Ram and Bhawani. The first Court (Assistant Collector of the second class) dismissed the suit. On appeal to the Collector he got a decree in 1906. The Collector in his judgment said, The fact remains that the appellant is undoubtedly landlord. The respondents are and have been for a considerable time recorded as occupancy tenants paying a certain rent. This is quite sufficient for this Court. Respondents can either go to the Civil Court or apply for abatement of rent. I see no reason to go behind this entry which is not new and in refutation of which there is...
Ramdhan Singh and ors. Vs. Ranjit Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All482
Richards, J.1. This was a suit to redeem a usufructuary mortgage, dated 17th May 1873. The mortgage provided for redemption at the expiration of ten years. The usufruct was to go against interest. The defendants pleaded that there were five other deeds and that the property could not be redeemed without paying up the amount due for principal and interest on the said five other deeds. The question for decision is whether this plea is good. The five other deeds are practically in the same form. The first is dated 27th November 1873, and is in the words and figures following:I, Ahmad Ullah, son of Muhammad Baksh, Sheikh by race, resident of Qasba Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, do declare as follows: That 24 bighas and 9 biswas pukhta of resumed land, situate in Khalisa mahal, village Kanora, pargana and Tahsil Sikandrabad, owned by me, is mortgaged for Rs. 700 to Umrao Khan, Dalmir Khan, Daljit Khan and Banjit Khan, sons of Darah Khan, Musalman Rajputs, residents and zamindars of vill...
Sheo NaraIn Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.495
1. This appeal arises out of the following facts : The defendants-respondents advanced a loan on a promissory-note to the father of the present plaintiff-appellant. After the death of the father the respondents brought a suit against the sons and grandsons of the deceased and obtained a simple money-decree. In execution of that decree they attached certain ancestral property. Objection was taken by the present appellant that the property was not saleable in execution of the decree. The two lower Courts held against him. An appeal was preferred to this Court, but pending the decision thereof the appellant on the 9th of May, 1902, paid into Court two-thirds of the decretal money. On the 24th of June, 1903, this Court held that the property attached being ancestral property could not be sold in execution of the decree on the true construction of the terms of that decree. The plaintiff then came into Court within three years from the date of the High Court's decree merely on the ground tha...
Ramdhari Rai Vs. Ramdhari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.456
Karamat Husain, J.1. Six mortgages with possession were executed by Ramjas, defendant No. 2, as the head of a joint Hindu family, in favour of the plaintiffs, of an exproprietary holding comprising Nos. 197, 22, 524, 462, 413, 57, 2054, 1972, 203 and 224, ten plots in all. The zamindar defendant No. 1 according to the allegation in the plaint colluded with the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who were the exproprietary tenants of the plots, and brought a suit for arrears of rent. The parties entered into a compromise whereby the exproprietary tenants relinquished their rights in favour of the zamindar. The plaintiffs filed an objection in that suit, but it was rejected. The zamindar then brought two actions for the ejectment of the plaintiffs. The defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded. The first action was commenced on the 14th of August 1905 for ejectment from plots Nos. 197, 203/1 and 224. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit on the authority of Rannu Rai v. Rafiuddin A.W.N. 1904...
Ranjit Khan and anr. Vs. Ramdhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.859
Richards, J.1. This was a suit to redeem a usufructuary mortgage dated 17th May 1873. The mortgage provided for redemption at the expiration of ten years. The usufruct was to go against interest. The defendants pleaded that there were five other deeds, and that the property could not be redeemed without paying up the amount due for principal and interest on the said five other deeds. The question for decision is whether this plea is good. The five other deeds are practically in the same form. The first is dated 27th November 1873 and is in the words and figures following: 'I Ahmad Ullah, son of Mohamad Bakhsh, Sheikh by race, resident of Qasba Sikandarabad District Bulandshahar do declare as follows : That 24 bighas and 9 biswas pukhta of resumed land, situate in Khalisa Mahal, village Kanora, pargana and Tahsil Sikandarabad owned by me, is mortgaged for Rs. 700 to Umrao Khan, Dalmir Khan, Daljit Khan and Ranjit Khan, sons of Darab Khan, Musalman Rajputs, residents and Zamindars of vil...
Jug Ram Vs. Jewa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.497a
1. The facts out of which the application has arisen are these: On the 27th of November, 1908, the applicant obtained a decree for pre-emption from this Court. The decree directed that he should pay the purchase-money, namely Rs. 45, within two mouths from that date. He was, therefore, bound to pay the amount on or before the 27th of January, 1909. He has not paid it but he makes an application for extension of time to enable him to pay the purchase-money now. There can be no doubt, and it in not disputed, that under Act XIV of 1882 such an application could not be made. The only remedy which the applicant had under that Act was an application for review of judgment on sufficient grounds. The applicant, however, relies upon the provisions of Section 1.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which enables a Court to enlarge the period fixed or granted by it for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. We have grave doubts whether this section applies to a case of pre-emption. F...
Musammat Nanhe Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.403
Alston, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore, dated the 1st of September, 1908. The learned vakil who appears for Musammat Nanhe, who is represented by her certificated guardian Puran, contends that on the findings of the lower Court the decree ought to have been passed against the persons who were found to have executed the rukka in question, those persons being Puran and Peare Lal. He asks, therefore, that the decree should be passed against Puran in his private capacity. I think his contention is sound. In the connected Civil Revision No. 13 of 1909 the plaintiff in the suit, Doulat Ram, asks that the decree should be passed in the names of Peare Lal, and Puran in his private capacity. I think this contention is also sound on the findings. The rukka does not purport to have been executed by Musammat Nan-he's certificated guardian as such. The lower court had, in my opinion, no right to go behind ho face of the rukka to ascert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »