Allahabad Court April 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.
Permanand and ors. Vs. Jagat Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.162
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that an account should be taken between them and the defendant as their agent and a decree might be granted for the amount that should be found due on the taking of accounts. The defendant never denied his agency. He said he was always ready and willing to render an account and in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the written statement, he alleged that there was money due by the plaintiffs to him which he had demanded. The accounts have been taken and on the taking of accounts the Court has found that no money was due to the plaintiffs by the defendants, but there is a sum due by the plaintiffs to the defendant. A decree has been given in favour of the defendant for the amount due. The only point argued in the present appeal is that the defendant not having claimed a set off against the plaintiffs' claim, no decree could be passed in his favour for any money found due to him from the plaintiff on the taking of accounts. In our o...
Masihullah Vs. Dakhini DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.169
Griffin, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in patti Ekramuddin to which the property sold appertains. The vendee respondent in this appeal, ten years previous to this suit, acquired by exchange a small plot of land in this patti. In defence to this suit for pre-emption, the vendee contended that by reason of his possession of this plot in patti Ekramuddin, he had an equal right with the plaintiff -pre-emptor to purchase the property in suit. The wajib-ul-arz provides that first, Mhurkai ekjaddi and secondly ShurJcai patti shall have a preferential right to pre-empt. It is admitted that neither the pre-emptor nor the vendee belongs to the first category. The question for decision is whether they, both come under the second category or only the plaintiff. The Court below held that the vendee is a Surkai Patti, and, therefore, he stands on an equal footing with the preemptor. In second appeal, it is contended that a purch...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Musammat Shaman Tawaif
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.210
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which one Musammat Shaman Tawaif, a dancing girl, seeks to recover from the Secretary of State a certain sum of money representing the value of the movable and immovable property left by one Musammat Ganeshi also a dancing girl. The plaintiff alleges in her plaint that from the time of the death of her parents, Musammat Ganeshi kept her with her, maintained her and trained her in the art of singing and dancing at her own expense and by reason of love declared her, the plaintiff, to be her successor and executor in respect of the whole of her property and that she also performed the funeral ceremony of Musammat Ganeshi. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the plaintiff says: 'according to law and custom the plaintiff is the lawful heir of the whole of the movable and immovable property left by Musammat Ganeshi deceased which was her special stridhan. The plaintiff is entitled to get the whole of the property left by the deceased 'also' because Musammat Ga...
Muhammad Nasar-ullah Khan Vs. Muhammad Ishaq Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.833
1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are shortly as follows: Muhammad Ishaq Khan made an application in the Revenue Court for partition. Objections were tiled by the appellant here, Muhammad Nasar-Ullah Khan. The purport of these objections was that there had already been a private partition between the parties of a great portion of the property, and he contended that this private partition should be paid regard to and that the lands which had been allotted to him by this private partition should be maintained in his possession. These objections were disallowed by the Assistant Collector in charge of the partition by an order of the 15th December, 1906. There was an appeal to the Collector who made an order on the 18th March, 1907. In this order lie points out that he has gone carefully into the whole matter. He says that there was a private partition and that he could find no trace of the said private partition, being merely of a temporary nature. He then proceeds to say '...
Girraj Singh and ors. Vs. Raghubans Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.878
1. Under the terms of the compromise in the pleadings mentioned, the village of Ladana fell to the lot of the plaintiffs. It was provided by the compromise that all. incumbrances, affecting this village, should be paid by the defendants, on or before the 31st of January, 1903. The defendants failed to pay off an incumbrance and thereupon the plaintiffs, on the 29th of June, 1904, paid the amount due on foot of that incumbrance and so saved the property from sale. They then brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on the 15th of June, 1907, which is within three years from the date when the payment was made by them. The Court below dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The learned Officiating Subordinate Judge in his judgment states that the date of default by the defendants was the 31st of January, 1903, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to demand the money from the party indebted on the 1st of February, 1903, and their cause of action accr...
Musammat Jhuna and anr. Vs. Munshi Tara Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.168
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs seek to be placed in possession of certain occupancy holdings as mortgagees in possession. The plaintiffs claim that the mortgagee rights under the mortgage of 5th February 1895, made in favour of one Son Kunwar by one Baber Ali Khan, formed part of the joint property of a joint family, which consisted of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs and one Fakir Chand, the husband of Musammat Son Kunwar, that partition proceedings were commenced in the year 1901 which resulted eventually in a compromise followed by a decree dated the 3rd July 1907. The defendants' case was that the debt created by the mortgage of the 5th of February 1895 and all mortgagee rights were the property of Musammat Son Kunwar and that Musammat Son Kunwar and one Lalta Prashad, on the 27th of June 1901, sold the mortgagee rights to them and that they were bona fide purchasers of such rights. The plaintiffs' reply to this contention was that the sale to...
Sheonandan Singh and ors. Vs. Achhabar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.190
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage made in the year 1844. In course of time the mortgagee rights became vested either in Hira Singh or in Hira Singh and Bharat Singh jointly as members of a joint Hindu family. On the 12th of December 1881, Hira Singh transferred the mortgagee rights to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs and the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. In 1906 the plaintiffs acquired the equity of redemption and they now seek to redeem the mortgage. The defendants plead limitation and undoubtedly the suit is barred unless the acknowledgment of Hira Singh contained in the deed of transfer of the 12th of December 1881, is a good acknowledgment. The defendants say that the acknowledgment is not good because on the findings of the Court below Hira Singh and Bharat Singh were joint, that the mortgage must be considered to have vested in Hira Singh and Bharat Singh jointly and that one of two mortgagees cannot give a valid acknowledgment so as to ...
In Re: Bhola Nath Vs.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.832
Tudball, J.1. The question which has been referred to me for decision by the Taxing Officer is whether this appeal be stamped with an ad valorem fee or should bear a fixed fee of Rs. 10. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is a suit for dissolution of partnership and for taking of accounts. For the purposes of Court-fees this suit falls under Section 7, Clause iv(f) of the Court Pees Act, and an ad valorem fee is to be paid according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint. The Court of first instance has passed a preliminary decree. The appellants were impleaded as defendants, and the Court held that their share in the partnership amounted to 6/16. Their case is that they have no interest whatsoever in the partnership. It is argued on their behalf that all they seek in this appeal is a declaration that they have no interest whatever in this partnership, and that the appeal, therefore, comes under Article 17, Clause iii or Clause vi of Schedule II of the Cour...
Musammat Dhanvanta and anr. Vs. Banarsi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.191
1. The genealogical table in this case is as follows:Ram Parkash Bhagat.|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |Munnilal Jegdeolal Jhunnulal Babulal Chunilal Makhan Laldefdt. defdt. | | defdt.| |Banarsilal Phul KaurMinor plff. Wife|Madholal, minor defendant.2. The property in suit was mortgaged to Jawhir Lal under registered mortgaged deeds dated the 27th of June, 1895, 27th of September 1898, 18th of May 1899, 30th of May 1900 and 26th of September 1901, executed by Makhan Lal and others. This appears from the recitals in the sale-deed of the 21st of March 1904. According to the recitals in the above sale deed, Makhan Lal, as a head and manager of the family for self and as guardian of Madho Lal, minor son of Babu Lal, Banarsi Lal, minor son of Jhunni Lal, and Musammat Phul Kunwar, wife of Babulal, mother and natural guardian of Madholal, sold the property in dispute to Musammat Dhanvanta, wife of Sheoram Lal. The preceding debts, for the...
Musammat Konsilla Vs. Ishri Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.188
George Knox, J.1. The facts of this case are: Musammat Konsilla on the 24th of November 1893, obtained a decree against one Ishri Singh. This decree shefirst put into execution on the 24th of January 1895. Several other applications were made by her for execution. All these were infructiious but in each one of them apparently some step was taken in aid of execution and the present application was instituted within three years of a previous application for execution to a proper Court in accordance with law. On the 25th of February 1909, she instituted the proceedings out of which the present appeal has arisen. The judgment-debtor at once took plea based upon Section 48 of Act No. V of 1908 that as more than twelve years had expired from the date of the decree, no order for execution could be made. Both the Courts below have accepted this plea and summarily rejected the application. They were of opinion that Section 48 above mentioned did bar execution.2. In appeal before us, it is urged...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »