Allahabad Court March 1910 Judgments
Chunno Lal Vs. Parbhu Dial
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.809
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff-appellant is barred by the provisions of Section 43 of Act No. XIV of 1882. Two suits were instituted by the plaintiff on the same date. The first, suit which was No. 33, was brought under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act against the defendant as co-sharer for settlement of accounts and for the plaintiff's share of profits in respect of the year 1309 Fasli. The second suit was brought against the defendant as lambardar for the plaintiff's share of the profits for the years 1310 and 1311 Fasli, and this suit purported to have been brought under Section 164 of the same Act.2. The Court below has held that the second suit, which was No. 34, is barred under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The learned Judge was of opinion that the cause of action in respect of both suits was the same 'whether the defendant made collections as a co-sharer or as a lambardar.'3. We are unable to agree with the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanda Singh and ors. Vs. Sheikh Wahid-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.183
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption, of what is alleged to be a mortgage, dated the 29th of August 1852, executed by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs against the representatives of the alleged mortgagees.2. The Court below dismissed the plaintiffs' suit finding that the document in question was an. out and out sale-deed and not a mortgage. Against this decision, the present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that upon a true construction of the document in question and another document of the 8th of September, 1852, the transaction evidenced by them was a mortgage by way of conditional sale.3. In the document of the 29th of August 1852, the entire of a Tillage called Murlipur Phul, which is stated therein to belong to the executants by right of inheritance, was conveyed to Ilahi Bakhsh and others in consideration of a sum of Rs. 5,500. The operative part of the document runs as follows: 'We have now sold the entire 20 biswa zamindari pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoram Apadeo Vs. Seth Phul Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.164
1. The suit, out of which; this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 4,864-5-0 with interest at 12 annas per cent. per mensem being portion of moneys secured by two mort gages of the 18th of April 1903, which the plaintiffs allege was not received by the mortgagors. The answer to the suit is that the subject-matter of it was considered and decided by the Special Judge appointed under the Bundilkhand Encumbered Estates Act, Act No. I of 1903. The mortgagors took the benefit of that Act and in the proceedings which followed their application, the question whether the full consideration of the two mortgages in question was paid was considered. This matter was determined by the Special Judge in favour of the mortgagees. On appeal to the Special Commissioner, the decision of the Special Judge was affirmed. On the basis of the decision so arrived at, the encumbrances upon the estate of the plaintiffs were determined under the provisions of the Act in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Mumtaz-un-nisa and ors. Vs. Bhagirath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.114
1. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought under the following circumstances. Musammat Narani and Musamrnat Mumtaz-un-nissa sold a three biswas share out of a 5 biswas share to the plaintiff-respondent, Bhagirath, on the 9th of January 1895. A large part of the consideration was left in the hands of the vendee for payment of debts due to creditors, some of whom held mortgages over the property sold. On the same date, two agreements were executed, one by the vendors and the other by the vendees. The agreement executed by the vendors provides that if by reason of a prior hypothecation or by reason of any kind of interference on the part of the vendors, any portion of the property sold goes out of the possession of the vendee, the vendors would return the purchase money in whole or in part with interest at the rate of Rs. 1-8 per cent. per mensem. The vendee agreed under document executed by him to discharge the debts and to make good any loss which might accrue to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahtab Ram Vs. Bhawani Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Raghunath Singh sold to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and to one Ram Singh the property which is the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff-appellant, under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz of the Village, claims pre-emption. It has been found that he is entitled to pre-empt and this right is not now in dispute. The price mentioned in the sale-deed is Rs. 1,000 and no evidence was adduced to show that this was not the real price agreed to be paid. The appellant, however, relied upon the terms of the wajib-ul-arz which gives the right of preemption to persons arranged in a number of categories and then proceeds as follows: 'If there be any dispute between the vendor and the pre-emptor regarding the price being less or more, it will be settled on the basis of Rs. 200 per biswa.' The pre-emption clause directs a pattidar, who wishes to sell, to offer the property to parties referred to in the several categories. In the present case, there...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Bakas Singh Vs. Musammat Dhanesh Koer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.167
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sought to be pre-empted is muafi land which was sold on the 10th of September, 1906. The pre-emptor is a co-sharer in the khalsa land of the village and has no interest in the muafi land in question.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the provision as to pre-emption contained in the wajib-ul-arz of the village did not give any pre-emptive right over muafi land.3. This view appears to ns to be correct. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer us to any case in which a pre-emptive right over muafi, land, as distinguished from resumed muafi, was established in favour of the owner of khalsa land in the village. On the contrary, we have two decisions of this Court bearing upon the question, which are entirely opposed to the contention which has been pressed before us. In the case of Narain Das v. Ram Saran Das 20 A. 419, it was held that co sharers in a nvha...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajputana Malwa Railway Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. the Ajmere Mu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.401
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Ajmere Courts Regulation No. 1 of 1877. The plaintiff company carried on business as general merchants in Ajmere and for the purposes of its trade imported Oilman's Stores and other articles for sale. They sued the Municipal Board of Ajmere for recovery of a sum of Rs. 81-7-0 said to have been wrongly charged against them by the Board for octroi duty for goods imported into India by sea between the 20th of January 1899 and the 24th of April 1899 and also to recover a sum of Rs. 1,510-15-5 alleged to have been charged against the company for octroi duty on goods similarly imported between the 24th of April 1899 and the 6th of March 1901 in excess of the maximum duty chargeable. The allegation of the company is that in respect of the duty charged during the first mentioned period, culinary goods are distinctly exempted from duty by the resolution of the Governor-General in Council dated the 6th of November 1868 and as to the rest of its clai...
Tag this Judgment!Rustam and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.101
George Knox, J.1. Rustam Ranghar, Pirthi, Mithani and Hoshnak Rajput have been convicted of the wilful murder of one Anup Singh and sentenced to death. The case has been submitted to us for confirmation of the sentences of death by the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut. We have also before us a petition from Jail sent in by Rustam. Pirthi, Mithan and Hoshnak have had their cases laid before us by learned Counsel. The case for the prosecution has been very fully and carefully set out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment, and we do not propose going into the facts of the case. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it is beyond doubt that Anup Singh was murdered on the 10th of August, 1909. The Medical evidence shows that death was due to wounds on the neck which had divided the trachea and gullet and severed the vessels on both sides of the throat. Evidence is given by one Bijai Singh to the effect that on the 9th of August, he saw Anup Singh ridi...
Tag this Judgment!Mula Vs. Partab
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.116
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of certain property which belonged to one Siria. He claims as the next reversioner to Siria. Siria died leaving a widow, Musammat Mathuri, and his mother, Musammat Tulsha. These ladies made a gift of the property in favour of one Nanda, who is now dead. Chhajju, the brother of Nanda, mortgaged apart of the property to Kabul defendant No. 3 and Sukh Ram, and he also sold a portion to the defendants Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. Musammat Tulsha is dead.2. It has been found that the widow Musammat Mathuri has married again. The plaintiff claims the property on the ground that by reason of Mathuri's second marriage she has forfeited her rights to the property of her first husband, and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the possession of it. The parties belong to the caste of Taga Brahmans.3. The Court below has found, and the correctness of its finding is not challenged in this appeal,...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath and anr. Vs. Kanhia Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.123
1. This litigation is concerned with a share of the properly of one Sham Lal, deceased. He was the grandson of one Gumani Lal. Gumani had three sons, namely Munna Lal, Ajudhia Pershad and Badri rTath. Munna Lal had two sons, namely Gopal and Sheo Parshad. The present defendants-appellants are Jagan Nath and Balanand, the sons of Gopal. Sheo Parshad had. one son, namely, Kauleshar Parshad. Sham Lal died many years ago prior to the year 1860, leaving his widow Musammat Naraini him surviving. After his death disputes arose amongst the members of the family as to the division of his property, and Gopal instituted a suit in which he impleaded as defendants Musammat Naraini and the three sons of Badri Nath, namely Ganesh Parshad, Maheshar Parshad and Beni Parshad. In that suit Gopal claimed to be entitled to the entire property of Sham Lai, alleging that Badri Nath was a separated Hindu and not a member of the joint family, and that he and Sham Lal were joint. Cranesh Parshad, Maheshar Parsh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »