Allahabad Court July 1909 Judgments
Partab Singh and ors. Vs. Izzat-un-nisa Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All583
Macnaghten, J.1. In a suit commenced in 1887 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, Intizam Begam obtained the usual mortgage decree for the sale of nine villages hypothecated to her as security for an advance of Rs. 30,000. This decree was affirmed by the High Court on the 25th of February, 1889.2. In June 1889, an order was made for the sale of these nine villages. The usual proclamation was issued. It stated that the property was subject to two prior mortgages for Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 respectively.3. At the auction sale Intizam Begam having got permission to bid, bought all the villages but one for Rs. 64,000. The remaining village was also sold, but not to her.4. At the time of the sale the position of the prior mortgages, which had been duly registered, was this: Both mortgages had been granted to, and were then held by, the same persons. No steps had been taken to enforce the first mortgage, which purported to comprise 13 villages, including all those in mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid-un-nisa Vs. Muhammad Ismail Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All572
Andrew Scoble, J.1. Muhammad Sardar Khan, the father of the appellant, died on the 1st May 1888, possessed of a half share in mauza Gaisupur and other property, and leaving as his heirs according to Muhammadan law (1) Ulfafc-un-nisa, an adult daughter by his first wife; (2) the appellant, Rashid-un-nisa, aged four years, daughter by his second wife; and (3) a brother named Mauladad Khan. Each of them was entitled to a third share in the estate. He also left an illegitimate son, named Abdul Majid Khan, for whom he made provision in his lifetime, by a gift of a share in his mauza of Gaisupur, leaving nine biswas of that property to be divided among his legitimate heirs at the rate pf three biswas apiece.2. At the time of his death Sardar Khan was indebted to the following persons:(1) to Fateh Chand for Rs. 8,280-11, under a decree dated the 18th December 1882;(2) to Achal Das for Rs. 2,500, under a bond dated the 31st January 1882;(3) to Sant Lal and Moti Lal, for Rs. 2,294-1 under a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.706
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the appellants to recover Rs. 346- 1 from the defendants and for sale of a shop alleged to be the property of the defendants. The facts are these. The said shop belonged to two brothers, Bhagwan Das and Chhote Lal, who mortgaged it to Matru Mal and Basdeo in 1903. They died leaving them surviving Musammat Hulaso, their mother, Musammat Ram Piari, widow of Chhote Lal, and Musammat Goma, daughter of Bhagwan Das. On the 20th of September, 1905, a sale-deed is alleged to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the said shop for a consideration of Rs. 600 by Hulaso and Ram Piari. It has been found that Ram Piari was a minor at the date of the sale and is still a minor. The Sub-Registrar, before whom the sale-deed was presented for registration, being also of opinion that Ram Piari was a minor, refused to register it as a document executed by her. The plaintiffs say that out of the amount of consideration for...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Deo Vs. Keshal Deo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.853
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a house on the allegation that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the house and that the defendants had been living therein as his licensees. The pleas in defence were that the house was ancestral that they were living in it as joint owners and that the sale deed dated 4th October 1885 executed by Moti Ram in favour of the plaintiff was fictitious. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit and his decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The only point for determination before the lower appellate Court as appears from its judgment was whether the plaintiff was or was not the sole owner of the house. That Court came to the conclusion that the house in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by the parties. The plaintiff has preferred a second appeal to this Court and two points have been argued by his learned vakil. The first is that the judgment of the District Judge dated the 6th June 1905 in miscellaneous...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshirji Framji and anr. Vs. Babu Kalyan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.46
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings relating to the execution of a decree. The facts are briefly as follows. The respondent obtained an ex parte decree against the appellants on the 8th of January 1909. The appellants applied to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree and to rehear the case. This matter came up for decision on the 27th of March 1909. The appellants it appears are residents of Bombay. The suit was in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. Apparently for the purpose of looking after their case the appellants proceeded to Benares and there put up at a Dak bungalow. They attended Court on the 27th of March, the case was heard and their application was dismissed. They left the Court, returned to the Dak bungalow and thence proceeded to the Railway Station. In the meantime the decree-holder had applied for execution of the decree and for the arrest of his judgment-debtors. Warrants were issued and the appellants 'were arrested when actually seated in the trai...
Tag this Judgment!Jagrup Koeri and ors. Vs. Ram Sundar Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.339
Karamat Husain, J.1. The following pedigree is admitted by the parties.Shewnandan.|------------------------| |Dhauntal Ram Das|Jaimangal|--------------------| |Jagrup. Buddlm.2. It has been found that Dhauntal, Jagrup and Buddhu were the members of a joint Hindu family. Dhauntal, under a sale-deed dated the 4th of August 1906, sold his share in the family property to the defendants. The sale-deed was in the name of Ram Sundar Tewari, and other defendants were made parties to the suit because they were members of the joint Hindu family of Ram Sundar Tewari. Jagrup and Buddhu brought the suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed and for possession of their share in the property sold. The allegations in the plaint with which I am concerned in this appeal are that the property was sold without consideration and without the consent of the plaintiffs, members of the joint Hindu family, and that the sale was not for any family necessity (zarurat khandani) whereby the plaintiffs were benefite...
Tag this Judgment!Shazade Singh and anr. Vs. Nawab Syed Mohammad Mehdi Ali Khan Alias Na ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.954
1. We agree with the view taken by our learned brother in this case. The matter now raised has been decided more than once by this Court in the same way and we are not disposed to take any other view which might well open a door to fraud. The appeal is. dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Beni Madho and anr. Vs. Munshi Indar Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.707
1. The question in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is barred by the rule of res judicata. The facts are these: On the 15th of November, 1899, a lease was granted by Indar Sahai, plaintiff, who is the zamindat of the village, to Ajudhia Prasad and Muthra Prasad, the pre-decessors-in-title of the appellants. The lessees alleging that they had been dispossessed brought a suit for recovery of possession and compensation and obtained a decree on the 25th of March 1903. They obtain-ed formal possession on the 4th of September 1903 but were again dispossessed and thereupon they brought another suit on the 4th of March 1904 for recovery of possession and compensation. This suit was decreed by the Court of first instance on the 30th of September 1904 and the decree was affirmed in appeal.2. The possession was delivered on the 19th of November 1905. On the 4th of December 1905, the lessor brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal against the lessees for arr...
Tag this Judgment!Riazul Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.260
Richards, J.1. This is an application in Revision to set aside an order of the Munsif directing the prosecution of the applicant. The learned Munsif purports to act under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant that the proceedings under Section 476 were quite too late. The civil case, in the course of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, was decided on the 21st of December, 1908, and the prosecution was not directed until the 3rd of April, 1909. The learned Counsel contends that action under Section 476 must be taken during the course of the trial or immediately afterwards, and in support of his argument he has cited Bahimatulla Sahib v. Emperor 31 M. 140 (F.B.); 3 M.L.T. 79; 17 M.L.J. 584; 7 Cr. L.J.54 also Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 32 M.49 F.B.; 19 M.L.J. 42; 4 M.L.T. 404; 1 Ind. Cas. 597; 9 Cr. L.J. 46. The Benches in these two cases were not quite unanimous, and the view taken by the majority o...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingh Sahai Vs. Bhagwan Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All612
Tudball, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these:2. The parties are neighbours, their houses adjoining. The defendant appellant's house lies north of that of the plaintiff-respondent. In the year 1896 the latter building was the property of a person from whom the plaintiff has subsequently purchased. Both houses then were single-storied buildings. The northern boundary of the southern house was the south wall of the northern house. Between this wall and the actual building of the southern house was an open bit of land, forming a courtyard of the latter. On this bit of land two water-spouts discharged the rain water which fell upon the roof of the defendant's house.3. The plaintiff's vendor wished to extend his building up to the wall of his neighbour and to support the roof of the extension by fixing his beams into the defendant's wall, He appears to have approached his neighbour and they came to an agreement evidenced by the document of 10th March, 189...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »