Allahabad Court December 1910 Judgments
Moulvi Ghulam Nabi Khan Vs. Musammat Niaz-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.140
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of an alleged mortgage of the 12th of August 1894. On that date a sale-deed was executed and a contemporaneous agreement whereby the vendee undertook to reconvey the property comprised in the sale-deed on re-payment of the amount of the purchase money within a period of five years. The period of five years has long since elapsed and consequently the agreement to reconvey is not capable of being enforced unless the transaction is regarded as in the nature of a mortgage by way of conditional sale.2. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the sale-deed represented an out and out sale and that the agreement whereby the vendee undertook to reconvey the property on payment of the purchase money within a limited time did not convert the sale into a mortgage by way of conditional sale.3. The second appeal has been preferred and reliance has been placed upon the language of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property...
Tag this Judgment!Ghafoor Khan Vs. Musammat Kalandari Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.127
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts are these. Musammat Kalandari Begam, one of the heirs of Musammat Gujrati Begam, deceased, applied for a Succession Certificate for the collection of a portion of the dower debt of Gujrati Begam. Her husband Ghaffoor Khan objected that no certificate for the collection of a portion of a debt could be granted.2. The learned District Judge overruled the objection and granted the certificate. In his order, dated the 18th of February 1910, he said: 'I think the applicant is entitled to the certificate applied for by her for the balance of the dower debt after deducting the share of the same to which the objector is entitled and which is in his hand and of the share of Musammat Sahib Jan another heir which has become time-barred.'3. The objector preferred an appeal to this Court and repeated the pleas he had raised in the Court below. The case owing to conflict of authorities was heard by a Bench of three Judges. It was urged for the appellant that a Successio...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad HussaIn and ors. Vs. Mohammad Shoqat Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.263
1. The Local Government, under Rule 17 of the Kamaun rules, have referred to this Court the following points for opinion: (1) Was the suit out of which this reference has arisen governed by Section 2 or by Section 4 of Regulation XL of 1825? (2) If Section 4 governs the suit, was the second appellate Court correct in applying Clause (1) of that section in preference to Clause (2). having regard to the finding of first appellate Court as to the suddenness of the changes in the river's course and to the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council to be observed in such cases2. The dispute between the parties has reference to a portion of land which lies adjacent to the river Kosi, which is subject to fluvial action and which is, therefore, a river to which the rules contained in Regulation XI of 1825 would apply. We have satisfied ourselves by a reference to the authorities that Regulation XI of 1825 has been extended to the parganna of Kashipur. The finding of the Deput...
Tag this Judgment!Srichand Vs. Musammat Suraj Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.146
Griffin, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was one brought by the next reversioners for recovery of possession of the property of which one Nek Ram was the last male owner. The plaintiff-appellant in this Court is the great grandson of one Pemraj, being the grandson of Birbal, son of Pemraj Pemraj had another son named Lokman who left two sons, Manbhawan and Zalim. It has been found by the Court below that Manbhawan and Zalim were members of a joint Hindu family. On the death of Manbhawan, the name of his widow Musammat Inda was recorded in the revenue papers in succession to Manbhawan. Zalim died leaving a son named Nekram who died shortly afterwards in 1886 leaving a widow Musammat Radha who died in 1893. Before that Musammat Inda had died in 1883, and Musammat Lado, widow of Zalim, had obtained mutation of names in succession to Musammat Inda. The plaintiffs' suit in respect of Zalim's share in the estate has been decreed, but in respect to the share which, belonged ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Shiamsunder Lal Vs. Har Narayan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.158
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for sale upon a mortgage dated the 3rd of October 1901, executed by the defendant Har Narain; Two villages were comprised in this mortgage. In June 1899, the same villages had been mortgaged by Har Narain to Jagan Nath and in February 1900, he made another mortgage of the same property in favour of Ram Sanehi. Jagan Nath brought a suit upon his mortgage making Ram Sanehi and the plaintiff parties to it and obtained a decree and an order absolute for sale and caused one of the mortgaged villages to be sold by auction. This village was purchased by the plaintiff. Ram Sanehi also brought a suit upon his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale on the 31st May 1904. The plaintiff was a party to that suit. There is nothing to show that an order absolute for sale was obtained by Ram Sanehi and it is not the defendant's case that a sale has taken place in execution of that decree. The plaintiff now seeks to ...
Tag this Judgment!Wilaiti Begam Vs. Fazal HusaIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1910
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.961
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit on foot of a bond. The bond is dated the 20th of September 1897. It was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The amount of principal was Rs. 500. The rate of interest was 2 per cent, per mensem, compound interest, at half yearly rests. Admittedly, Rs. 150 had been paid before the suit was instituted. The plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 6,500, principal and interest. In the Court below, the plaintiff, of his own accord, reduced the claim by Rs. 1,500. The defence was that the bond was really executed in favour of the defendant's father, that Fazal Husain Khan was merely benamidar for the defendant's father, that the defendant had paid her father the amount due on the bond, that after his death, the plaintiff got possession of the bond, and brought the present suit. There is a farther plea that the bond was not duly registered. The Court below held that the plaintiff was not benamidar for the defendant's father, Wajihullah Khan, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Kumar Upadhya and ors. Vs. Jittu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.52
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the redemption of a mortgage, dated the 20th of May 1871, executed by Jokhan Singh, father of the plaintiff, and Prag Singh, one of his uncles. The defendants are the representatives-in-interest of the original mortgagee. Another mortgage was executed on the 3rd of October 1877, which created a further charge on the property comprised in the first mortgage and provided that the first mortgage would not be redeemed without payment of the amount of the second mortgage. The second mortgage was executed by the plaintiff's father, Jokhan Singh, and by another uncle of his, named Chandarbhan. The plaintiff makes no mention of this mortgage in his plaint. In fact he denied that any such mortgage existed. It has, however, been found by both the Courts below that the mortgage of 3rd October 1877 was made by Jokhan Singh and Chandarbhan Singh. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's uncles ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Singh Vs. Jagan Mohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.80
John Stanley, C.J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, the plaintiff sought a declaration of his title to a house situate in Allahabad. It appears that the house in question was built by the father of the plaintiff. He died in 1892 leaving the plaintiff his heir, at that time a minor. The defendant is married to the plaintiff's sister and he lived in the house with the plaintiff. He also, it appears, was the general attorney of the plaintiff's guardian up to the year 1902, when the plaintiff came of age. A dispute arose between the parties and a suit for accounts was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant and on the 28th of November 1902, an agreement was entered into between the parties for the settlement by arbitration of their disputes including a dispute as to the title to the house in question. Three arbitrators were appointed but the proceedings proved abortive by reason, it is said, of the conduct of the plaintiff, He served a notice upon the arbitrator...
Tag this Judgment!Sheobaran and ors. Vs. Binaik Dat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.51
Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of an occupancy holding. The plaintiff bases his claim on a usufructuary mortgage which he obtained from Musammat Bahuta in 1871. Musammat Bahuta was then the occupancy tenant of the holding in suit and continued to be such until her death. Musammat Bahuta died somewhere about the year 1900. The plaintiff alleged that after her death the defendants entered into possession of the holding and continued paying interest to the plaintiff up to three years before the suit when they stopped making any payment. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit for possession under his mortgage or in the alternative to recover the mortgage-money. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that on the death of Musammat Bahuta, the last occupancy tenant, who died without leaving any heir, the occupancy tenancy lapsed to the zamindar and that the plaintiff's title as mortgagee from Musammat Bahuta determined ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Pande and ors. Vs. Musammat Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.50
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs claimed possession of shares in two villages as reversionary heirs of one Mulai Pande. They also claimed mesne profits. The property in dispute with other' property belonged to one Ajudhia deceased. He left three sons Pargash, Mulai and Hardayal. Before his death he divided his property between these three sons and it is a matter not now in controversy that the three sons were separated Hindus. Mulai accordingly at the time of his death was entitled as a separated Hindu to his share. He had a son named Janki who predeceased him leaving a widow Musammat Katwari Kunwar. He also left two widows, namely, Musammat Hansrani and Musammat Sitla Kunwar. The last of these widows died in 1889. A plea of limitation was set up by the defendants, and this plea was decided in their favour by the learned Subordinate Judge upon the ground that 12 years had elapsed before the institution of the suit from the death of Musammat Katwari.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »