Allahabad Court July 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.
Jadu Rai and anr. Vs. Ganesh Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.79
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. The suit was one for pre-emption in respect of a sale made on the 1st of September 1905. The amount of consideration for the sale mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 1,499-15-0. The plaintiffs alleged that the true consideration was Rs. 66(5-9. The suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 30th of August 1905. The Officer of that Court reported that the suit was cognizable by the Court; and thereupon the plaint was admitted and the 19th of September 1906 was fixed for settlement of issues. On that date the defendant objected that the suit was not cognizable by the Subordinate Judge. That objection was allowed and on the same date an order was made directing the plaint to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. On the 20th of September 1906 it was filed in the Court of the Munsif. It was urged in the Munif's Court that as the plaint was filed in that Court after ...
Bunkates Sewak Singh Vs. Rama Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.905
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit: for sale on a mortgage. The property in suit originally belonged to the family of which the appellant is a member. It was purchased by Babu Madho Das, father of the plaintiffs, in 1883. Under a sale-deed, dated 25th October, 1893, and registered on 27th October, 1893, Babu Madho Das re-sold the property bought by him in 1883 to Rai Ramanuj Sewak Singh, Rai Bunkates Sewak Singh and Rai Sri Newas Singh. The sale-deed sets out the receipt of a portion of the consideration and recites that the vendees and one Rai Rukmini Sewak Singh had executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the son of Babu Madho Das hypothecating the property sold and other property in addition as security for payment of the balance of the consideration money. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is one for enforcement of this mortgage. It was executed on the 27th October, 1893, and registered on the same day along with the sale-deed. In the deed the appella...
Baijnath Dass and ors. Vs. Sohan Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.967
1. On the 12th of February, 1909, a Division Bench of this Court after hearing an appeal presented by Musammat Sohan Bibi against Musammat Hiran Bibi and others, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remanded the case to that Court with directions to reinstate it under its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. We are informed that the Court below has fixed the 11th of July and intends to proceed to try the case remanded on that date. On the 8th of May the defendants who were respondents to the appeal in this Court put in a petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty the King in Council as an appeal from a judgment and decree of this Court. Upon notice going to the other side to show cause why leave should not be granted, Musammat Sohan Bibi has appeared to show cause. Her contention is that the order of this Court, dated the 12th February, 1909, is an interlocutory order and that the application for leave to appeal is premature. B...
Churaman Kandu and ors. Vs. Ajudhia Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.117
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out 6i a suit brought by the respondent plaintiff to recover possession of immovable property together with mesne profits under the following circumstances, to understand which it is necessary to set forth the following pedigree Arti Singh (d). | _____________|______________ | | Guman Singh (d) GharibSingh (d) | | Suchet Singh (d) Kulwant Singh (d) m. Mt. Sukhmani | ____________|_____________ | | Ramhit Singh (d) Sheobalak Singh (d) | | Pragdin Singh (d) Ajudhia. Singh | Plaintiff. | ____________|____________ | | Gokul (defendant). Ummed (defendant).2. Suchit Singh died some time prior to the year 1866 leaving a widow Musammat Sukh-mani who, on 11th January of that year, executed a sale-deed of the property now in suit, in favour of Gopaldat Kandu, the prede-dessor of the defendants-appellants. At that time, Ramhit Singh, the grandfather of the defendants Gokul and Ummed, was the nearest male relative of Suchit Singh; the present plaintiff-respondent,...
Mathura Prasad Vs. Ganga Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.519
Banerji, J.1. The principal question in this appeal is whether the share which a Hindu mother gets on partition among her sons is her stridhan. This point was decided by this Court in Chhidu v. Naubat 24 A. 67, which was followed in Gambhir Singh v. Makaradhuj 4 A.L.J. 673 : A.W.N. (1907) 206. In these cases it was held that the share so acquired by themother is her stridhan and devolves in the same way as any other stridhan. Hon. Pt. Malaviya has drawn, my attention to certain observations contained in the judgment in Phopi Ram v. Rukmin Kuar (1895) A.W. 84 : 19 A. 327 (Note). In view of the later rulings to which I have referred, I feel myself bound to follow them and to hold that the property claimed in this case was the stridhan of the plaintiff's grand-mother and passed upon her death to the defendant, the plaintiff's uncle, in preference to the plaintiff and his brothers.2. One other contention was raised on behalf of the plaintiff, namely, that the defendant Ganga Ram was bound ...
Bhagwant Singh Vs. Nara1n Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.538
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court allowing the appeal of the defendants-respondents and restoring the decree of the Court of first instance. The suit was brought by the plaintiff lambardar against the defendants who are subordinate proprietors for-recovery of arrears of revenue for three years at the rate. of Its. 48 a year. The defence was that under an agreement entered into between the predecessors in title of the parties on the 16th of April, 1859, they were liable to pay only Rs. 22 a year, 'whatever the amount of the revenue might be. In the agreement it was distinctly provided that even if the revenue was enhanced the subordinate proprietors would be liable to pay to the superior proprietors Rs. 22 a year and no more. The Court of first instance made the decree at the rate of Rs. 22 a year. This decree was reversed by the lower appellate Court but has been restored by the learned Judge of this Court.2. It is contende...
Lachman Misra Vs. Ramjas Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.983
Karamat Husain, J.1. In execution proceedings the decree-holder put in an application under Sections 311 and 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale in favour of Mahabir, son of Ramjas Sahu, on the allegation that there was a material irregularity that the sale was due to a collusion between the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and that there was also a collusion between the Amin and the opposite party No. I. The Court of first instance granted the application and ordered the sale to be set aside. The lower appellate Court proceeding solely on the ground of material irregularity covered by Section 311 set aside the order of the first Court and confirmed the sale. The decree-holder has preferred a second appeal to this Court. A preliminary objection is taken that an order passed in appeal from an order under Section 311 is final under the provisions of Section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882). The learned vakil for the decree-holder in answer to this...
Fateh Ram and ors. Vs. Babu Sham Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.991
1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the judgment-debtors appellants under Section 258 of Act XIV of 1882, asking the Court to record an alleged adjustment of a decree as certified. The decree-holder respondent had taken out execution of his decree and some property of the judgment-debtor was advertised for sale. On the date fixed for the sale the parties, it is alleged, entered into an agreement, whereby the judgment-debtors undertook to pay down Rs. 25 in cash, pay a further sum of Rs. 25 in November 1906, and execute a sale-deed of certain immovable property in favour of the decree-holder for the remainder of the amount of the decree. This agreement was made on the 20th of August 1906. Rs. 25 was paid to the decree-holder but no sale-deed was executed nor was the further sum of Rs. 25 paid. On the 17th of November 1906 the judgment-debtors filed an application which purported to be an application under Section 258 and stated therein that it had been mutually agreed be...
Gaya DIn Vs. Mata DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All599
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for possession of a house, which was purchased by his father Pancham at an auction sale on the 5th of March, 1904. The facts are these: A suit was brought by Banni Ram and Raja Ram against four persons, namely, the defendants Mata Din, Ram Adhin, Ram Narain and Chitrakoti to recover money due on two hundis alleged 4o have been executed in favour of those plaintiffs on behalf of a firm of which the defendants were members. Chitrakoti is a minor, and in the suit he was described as represented by his father Ram Adhin as his guardian ad litem. The plain, tiffs filed an application supported by an affidavit praying that Ram Adhin might be appointed guardian of the minor for the suit. Notice was issued to Ram Adhin to show cause, but he did not appear. The Court, however, does not appear to have recorded a formal order appointing Ram Adhin as guardian ad litem of the minor, but summons was issued...
Narsingh Das and ors. Vs. Musammat Munna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.537
1. The appeal arises out of the execution of a simple money-decree. The decree-holders obtained in the year 1892 a usufructuary mortgage of certain property. The period of the mortgage was 8 years. The mortgagees never got possession. They subsequently instituted a suit for sale of the mortgaged property. They were met by numerous defences including defence of payment. The Court before which the case ultimately name held that there was no payment, and that the mortgagees were not entitled to bring the property to sale. The property had at that time already been mortgaged a second time by way of usufructuary mortgage to another person. The Court, however, held that the mortgagees were entitled to a simple money-decree under the provisions of Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act. Such a decree was granted, and this is the decree which is now sought to be executed. The property which has been attached and which the decree-holders seek to sell is the same property as was originally m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »