Allahabad Court January 1910 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.
Shugan Chand Vs. Ramjas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.292
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. Both the lower Courts have held that the present application for execution is barred by limitation. As far as it is necessary for the purposes of this appeal, the facts are as follows: The last application for execution was made on the 14th of June 1905 for attachment and sale of a certain house. Objection was made by two persons to the attachment and sale on the ground that the property belonged to them and not to the judgment-debtor. On the 28th of June 1905, the Court fixed the 23rd of September for the trial of the objection. On the 23rd September, the decree-holder filed a written reply and asked the Court to reject the objections. He also filed a second application asking the Court to receive and record the evidence of certain witnesses whom he had brought with him. The Court recorded the evidence and on the 25th of September held that the property belonged to the objectors and not to the judgment-debtor. It appears t...
Chingan Gir and anr. Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.322
1. This application in revision has been referred to us by a Judge of this Court. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad claiming damages because the defendant had cut down certain trees belonging to him and converted the same to his own use. The defendant pleaded in the Small Cause Court that the plaintiffs had no trees and that he did not cut any down. The Small Cause Court found that the defendants had cut down trees belonging to the plaintiffs of the value of Rs. 100 and gave a decree for that amount and costs. The grounds of revision are that the relation of mortgagee and mortgagor exists between the defendants and the plaintiffs and that the defendant was the mortgagee in possession. It was contended on behalf of the defendant in this Court that the suit was altogether premature, and that the question of damage alleged to have been done by him must be decided when the mortgagor was redeeming. In connection with this argument Section 76 Clause (e...
Sri Raman Lalji Vs. Desraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.875
1. The question which arises in this application is whether or not the learned District Judge was right in returning the memorandum of appeal, in an execution matter to the judgment-debtor-appellant for presentation to the High Court. The suit out of which the execution matter arose was one to enforce payment of a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff valued his suit at Rs. 1,945. In the suit he claimed to recover his own mortgage for Rs. 1,000 together with interest thereon, and also stated that he wished to redeem two prior mortgages for the aggregate sum of about Rs. 15,000 if the debt were found to be due. A decree was given in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of the property. The amount was directed to be paid by instalments. On failure to pay the instalments, the plaintiff was to have the right to redeem the two prior mortgages and to sell the property for their amount as well as the amount of his own mortgage. There was a condition that he must make good ...
Piran Shah Vs. Salig Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.267
1. We are of opinion that, the, decision of the learned District Judge is correct. He has given reasons for the conclusion at which he arrived, and we think that those reasons are sound. He is supported in his judgment by the decision of a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, in Appeal No. 22 of 1909 under the Letters Patent, Dhanpal v. Nand Kishore The facts in that case were some-what similar to those in the present case, and the learned Judge of this Court, from whom the appeal under the Letters Patent was preferred, concurred with the lower appellate Court, giving reasons for the c inclusion at which he arrived which commend themselves to us. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with, costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale....
Nakta Ram and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.269
1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage. During the minority of the plaintiff there had been certain litigation between the parties which resulted in a finding that the mortgage debt due from the plaintiff amounted to only Rs. 45-8-0. Upon this the plaintiff deposited this sum under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and brought a suit for possession by redemption of the mortgage. This sail resulted in a decree, the correct interpretation of which is the main point for determination in this case. Execution of this decree was never taken out, and the deposit of Rs. 45-8-0 is found to have been withdrawn from the Civil Court by some person other than the mortgagee. These transactions took place in the year 1884 A.D. The plaintiff having now attained majority brings a fresh suit for redemption on payment of Rs. 45-8-0. The question is whether this suit is maintainable in view of the fact that the decree of 1884 has been allowed to become time-barred. We were referred in t...
Samodh Dhar Dube and anr. Vs. Bhuladhar Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.284
Tudball, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal. The facts of the case are as follows: A suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage was brought against three sets of defendants (1) the heirs of the original mortgagor, (3) a puisne mortgagee, (3) transferees of a portion of the property from the original owner. The puisne mortgagees and the transferees and one of the heirs of the mortgagor contested the suit and finally a decree was given against all the defendants (ex parte, as against those who had not appeared). An order absolute was obtained on January 3rd 1905. Some of the heirs of the mortgagors who had not appeared to contest the suit applied to the Court under Section 108, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, to set aside the ex parte decree. The Court of first instance rejected the application bat on appeal the appellate Court on 27th April 1905 ordered the ex parte decree to be set aside, the suit to be restored to the original file and to be re-heard. The Munsif re-heard the suit restr...
Salig Ram Mahajan and anr. Vs. NaraIn Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.263
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage on the movable property under the following circumstances. The original owner of the property, one Badri Prasad, gave an usufructuary mortgage in August 1856 to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant No. 1 respondent, on the 20th November 1872. The equity of redemption was sold in execution of a decree against him and was purchased by one Nand Lal, who is now represented by defendant No. 2. The sale admittedly was duly confirmed but as possession was with the usufructuary mortgagee, no formal possession was asked for. Neither has any sale certificate been taken from the Court. Subsequent to this, Bhola Nath, son of Badri Prasad, sold to the appellant's ancestor the equity of redemption. The appellants have now sought to redeem the mortgage. His suit has been thrown out by both the lower Courts. On second appeal two grounds are pressed. The first ground is that contained in the fourth plea of the memorandum of appeal...
Chotey Singh Vs. Eshwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.295
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal in an execution case; both Courts below have held the decree to be barred by limitation. A preliminary decree under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act was passed on December 24th 1889, which was followed by a decree absolute for sale on September 11th 1890. Various proceedings in execution followed, the decree-holder apparently granting extensions of time in return for part payment. The learned District Judge seems to have been under some misapprehension when he spoke of execution being 'apparently barred by time' when a payment of Rs. 140 was certified in May 1899. It has been conceded before us in argument that the decree was alive and capable of execution when an application for the same was made on July 13th, 1901. This application was pending, and sale has actually been ordered, when on December 20th, 1901, the parties presented to the Court and attested before it an agreement under the provisions of Section 257 A of the former Code of C...
Sheobalak Kalwar and ors. Vs. Kalka Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.317
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to be put into possession of 2 bighas, 10 biswas and 16 dhuris of land held at a fixed rate to the extent of half of 5 bighas, 1 biswa and 12 dhuris. It appears that a certain fixed rate tenancy was held by the descendants of one Sewak Singh in equal shares. One Roste Singh represented one moiety and Kalka Singh and others represented the other moiety In the year 1893, Roste Singh sold to the plaintiffs one moiety of the tenancy and in the year 1897 Kalka Singh and others sold to the plaintiffs half of 19 bighas, 7 biswas, 5 dhuris. The defendants-respondents, Jokhu and Ram Charan, claim under a mortgage with possession, made in the year 1896 by the same parties as those who had made the second sale in favour of the plaintiffs, that is to say, Kalka Singh and others. The mortgage was a mortgage of 5 bighas, 1 biswa and 12 dhuris. The plaintiffs' claim was that the holding was a joint undivided holding and t...
Kesho Das and anr. Vs. Makshodan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.870
1. There is no force in this appeal. The plaintiff's suit was brought to recover arrears of rent due by the defendants under a letting made to them by the plaintiff. It is found by the lower appellate Court that the defendants took a lease from the plaintiff alone and on the expiration of that lease the defendants continued to remain in possession of the property on the basis of the lease. Subsequently to the years for which the rent is claimed in this litigation the defendants were ejected in a suit brought by the plaintiff alone. Both the lower Courts have given a decree for the amount of the arrears. This appeal has been preferred and the grounds of appeal are substantially that there has been litigation between the plaintiff and other parties in relation to the property in dispute, and other property, which is alleged to be endowed property, and that the defendants, if they pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff, may be held responsible for the same at the suit of other parties. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »