Allahabad Court February 1910 Judgments
Mohan Lalaji and anr. Vs. Madhusudan Lala
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.77
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought to recover joint possession of a certain temple of the Ballavcharya Gosain sect, in which the images of Balkrishna are placed, together with a grove and the movable property, ornaments and other articles, appurtenant thereto. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Ganga Betiji, a daughter of one Goswami Muttuji Maharaj. The original defendants were Anrudh Lala and Madhsudan Lala, the sons of one Gurdhana Betiji (another daughter of the said Goswami Muttuji Maharaj) and Damodar Lala, the husband of Gurdhana (sic). When the suit was first instituted, the plaintiffs merely claimed joint possession with Anrudh Lala and Madhsudan Lala. Whilst the suit was pending, Anrudh Lala died unmarried leaving his father Damodar Lala as his representative. Again, pending the suit, Tikait Gor-dhan Lalji, who is now the principal defendant and respondent, brought a suit against Anrudh Lal and Madhsudan Lal claiming that, under the custom observed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Rukia Begum Vs. Muhammad Kazim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.568
1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen is the widow of the late Muhammad Husain, a Pleader of Muzaffarnagar. She claims against the representatives of her husband a portion of the dower which was fixed on the occasion of her marriage. The amount of the dower is alleged to have been Rs. 1,25,000. She abandons a large portion of the amount and only claims Its. 25,000. The parties were married at Lucknow, where the plaintiff resided at the time of her marriage, and the marriage contract was entered into at Lucknow. The wife went with her husband to Muzaffarnagar of which he was a resident. The learned Additional Judge came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the marriage contract was entered into in Lucknow, he had jurisdiction to administer the law provided by the Oudh Laws Act, Act XVIII of 1876. After hearing the evidence he came to the conclusion that a sum of Its. 10,000 was an ample sum to allow for dower in view of the means and circumstances of the husband...
Tag this Judgment!Pursotam Rao Tantia and ors. Vs. Radha Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.692
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were the proprietors in possession of, and the defendant, Musammat Radha Bai had no right to, the property in suit and that the said Musammat Radha Bai was not entitled to get her name entered in the Revenue papers. Musammat Radha Bai is the widow of Madho Rao who was a nephew of the plaintiff Parsotam Rao. A pedigree of the family, which is admitted to be correct will be found (at page 5 of the paper-book) below; Nana Narain Sao | ____________________________________________ | | | Vasdeo Kao Parsotam Rao Babu Ram Anna, Tantia, Chandra Rao, deceased (plaintiff No. 1) deceased= | | Musammat Janki Madho Rao, Waman Rao, Bai, widow, deceased = (plaintiff No. 2). Musammat Radha Bai, widow.2. One Nana Narain Rao made a Will, under which he divided up his property between his sons. The Will contained a provision that it might be well for the family of Nana Narain Rao if notwithstanding the divis...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Parshad Bhagat Vs. Suba Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.74
1. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the order of reference of our learned brother. We have been referred to the ruling Shea Parshad Tewari v. Musammat Mulima Bibi N.W.P.H.C.R. (1869) 108. The case before the Court was one of distraint and the question for decision was whether, having reference to the provisions of the Sections 115 and 118 of Act X of 1859, Guava trees came within the category of standing crops or the ungathered products. The decision of the Court was to the effect that the term 'products of the land' must be construed as equivalent to that which can be gathered or stored; crops of the nature of cereal or grass or fruit crops and it did not apply to the trees from which the crops are gathered. In this view the Court held that the zamindar was not entitled to levy a distress on Guava trees. Section 42 of Act XII of 1881, which reproduced the corresponding section of Act XVIII of 1873, provided that a tenant, ejected in accordance with the provision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kutub-ud-dIn Ahmad and anr. Vs. Munshi Bashir-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.665
Stanley, C.J.1. The only question pressed before us in this appeal is concerned with the rate of interest chargeable to the defendants-appellants. The suit was one to raise the amount due on foot of a mortgage of the 14th of August 1900 by sale, if necessary, of the mortgaged property. In the mortgage the mortgagor admitted that he had borrowed Rs. 3,000 from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem and he (sic) to make payment on demand. Then follows a provision that if the annual interest be paid to the mortgagor at the end of the year, the rate of interest will be reduced to Re. 1-4 per cent, per mensem, but that if the mortgagor fail to pay the interest at the end of the year, interest at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem will be added to the principal and compound interest be paid at that rate.2. The interest not having been punctually paid, the Court below gave a decree for the higher rate of interest.3. It is contended by the learned Vakil for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Juanendranath Basu Vs. Rani Nihalo Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.38
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken by one Jnanendra Nath Basu, decree-holder, against Rani Nihalo Bibi, widow of the deceased Raja Suchit Prasad Singh and his nephews Raja Nityanand Prasad Singh and Kunwar Satyanand Prasad Singh. In this particular Appeal No. 594 the widow is the principal respondent but in E.S.A. No. 594 the nephews above mentioned are the principal respondent. In both the cases the other party or parties have been made pro forma respondents. The two appeals have been argued as one appeal and our judgment will stand as the judgment in both appeals. The decree was obtained by the appellant on the 5th of February 1904. At that time Raja Suchit Prasad Singh was alive and the decree was passed against him. He died, however, before any application was made to execute the decree. The first application for execution put in by the decree-holder is dated the 19th of April 1905. The nephews and the nephews only were arrayed on the record as the legal repre...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Asa Ram Vs. Kanhaya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.129
1. The only question in this appeal is whether or not the record-of-right of pre-emption is of a right arising from contract or existing by custom. This question depends upon the provisions of the wajib-ul-arzes of the village of 1267 and 1295 Faslis. The village in question is situate in the Saharanpur District. The Courts below held that the record was one of a custom and not of a contract and that, therefore, notwithstanding that the settlement had come to an end, the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the sale effected in favour of the defendant-appellant.2. In the wajib-ul-arz of 1267, which is instituted 'wajib-ul-arz, Yani dastur dehi mauza Sidhauli' after setting out the names of the co-sharers in the village, there is the following recital: 'Whereas a new settlement of our village from July 1860 to 1890 for a period of 30 years has been made on a revenue of Rs. 484 annually, therefore, the agreement of us, proprietors and lambardars, is that till the term of this settlement an...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Singh and ors. Vs. Jang Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.569
1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The plaintiff is the transferee of mortgagee rights created by a mortgage-deed of the 12th of December, 1888. The mortgage was usufructuary. In the rainy season of 1307 Fasli, corresponding to July--September 1899, eleven out of the twelve bights, of the land mortgaged, were submerged in the river Ganges. In the rainy season of the following year, i.e., July--September, 1900, the mortgaged land was wholly submerged. Here we may observe that the Court below has fallen into an error in saying that the total submergence took place between September 1900, and September 1901. The error is due to confusing the agricultural with the Fasli year. The Khasra of 1307 Fasli referred to in the judgment of the Court below is clearly the Khasra prepared in the agricultural year commencing on the 1st of July, 1899, and not as the learned Subordinate Judge takes it, in the Fasli year commencing on the 20th of September, 1899. The plaint s...
Tag this Judgment!Baru Gir Vs. Mahant Tulshi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.37
1. The circumstances of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:One Ghasi Gir died leaving a widow, Musammit Ganeshi, and two sons, Kishen Gir and Bishen Gir. Bishen Gir died in 1892. Kishen Gir died in 1905. On the 14th March 1898, while Kishen Gir was still alive and a minor, Musammat Ganeshi executed a sale-deed in lieu of. Rs. 1,000 in favour of a transferee whose rights have been acquired by the present respondent. It is necessary to note that on the death of Ghasi Gir, the names of his sons and widow were recorded in the revenue papers, and in the sale-deed Musammat Ganeshi described herself to be the owner of the property which she sold and purported to transfer the full right of ownership. On the 12th March 1907, after the death of Kishen Gir, she similarly transferred other property, which has come to the hands of the present respondent. On the 27th August 1907, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff, who is the next reversioner entitled to posses...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Rup Chand Vs. Fateh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.36
1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, whereby he has allowed the application made by certain persons, Musammat Makandi, Musammat Lachmi Kuer and others praying that they may be added as parties to a suit pending in this Court between one Pandit Rup Chand and one Fateh Chand. The order under which these persons have been added as parties is Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words of the order are identical with those of Order 16, Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of 1883 and they have been interpreted in the case of Moser v. Marsden (1812) 1 Ch. D. 487 : 61 L.J. Ch. 319 : 66 L. 570 : 40 W.R. 520; in that caseitwas held that the addition of parties who are only indirectly affected and not directly interested in the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant is a question of jurisdiction; and the Court has no power to add persons only indirectly interested as parties to the suit. In the present ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »