Allahabad Court July 1910 Judgments
Wajid Ali Khan Vs. Shafkat Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.911
1. The question in this appeal is whether two documents dated respectively the 30th April, 1897, are to be read together, and if so read constitute a transaction amounting to a mortgage. The lower appellate Court has read them separately and has treated the transaction as an out and out sale with an agreement to re-purchase within a limited period. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought for redemption of the property. The Court of first instance decreed the claim, but upon appeal the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the Court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's claim holding that the two documents in question were not to be read together, but separately and so read constituted a sale and an independent agreement for re-purchase. We are of opinion that the lower appellate Court was wrong in the construction which it placed on the documents. The first of the two documents purports to be an out and out sale, but at the fend of the instrument the...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Prasad Vs. Janki Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.905
1. This appeal and the connected First Appeal No. 231 of 1906 See 7 Ind. Cas. 908, infra arise out of a suit brought by Musammat, Duni Knar for possession of property which she alleged she had inherited from her son Gurdyal. She was the widow of Tewari Jwala Prasad who died in 1869, leaving him surviving his Widow Duni Kuar, two sons Kalka Prasad and Gurdyal, and a daughter Laraiti Knar who is one of the appellants in the connected Appeal No. 231. Jwala Prasad was one of the three sons of Kushal Singh, the other sons being Daryao Singh and Umrao Singh. Daryao Singh had a son Jaswant Singh but with his branch of the family we are not concerned in this appeal. Umrao Singh's son was Gandharp Singh and it is asserted by the appellant Jwala Prasad that he was adopted to Gandharp Singh. In first appeal No. 173 of 1908, decided on the 15th of December, 1909, we held for the reasons stated in the judgment in that case, that Jawala Prasad was validly adopted. For the same reasons we hold in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Beti Kuar and ors. Vs. Janki Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.908
1. The facts of this case are stated in the judgment just, now delivered in Jwala Pershad v. Janki Kunr 7 A.L.J. 975 : 7 Ind. Cas. 905. The contention on behalf of the appellants is, that as there was a partition between the sons of Duni Kunwar she as their mother acquired a third share in the property, that such share was, in accordance with the rulings of this Court, her stridhan and passed on her death to her personal heir, namely, the appellant Laraiti Kunwar and that the appellant is entitled to a decree for a one-sixth share claimed in the alternative by Duni Kunwar in the second prayer of her plaint. In our opinion this contention is without force. A.s we have stated in our judgment in Jwala Prasad v. Janki Kuar 7 A.L.J. 975 : 7 Ind. Cas. 905, there was no actual partition between the sons of Duni Kunwar, although by reason of the arrangement under which they held the property after Gurdyal Singh had come of age, there was a disruption of the joint family within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tulshi Ram Sahu and anr. Vs. Gur Dayal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.231
Stanley, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are zamindars of the village of Karmanpur in the District of Ballia. There is a small cultivatory holding, which was held from the plaintiffs by one Ram Dhyan as a tenant at fixed rates, In the year 1870, he executed a usufructuary mortgage of this holding in favour of the respondents which contained a provision for redemption in any Jeth. Ram Dhyan is said to have disappeared a number of years ago, and according to the plaintiff, he has not been heard of for more than seven years and must be presumed to have died. It is also alleged that he died without heirs. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage out of which this appeal has arisen. The right of the plaintiffs to redeem is contested and the defendants further allege that Ram Dhyan is alive.2. The lower appellate Court held, relying upon the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dihal Rai v. The Maharaja of Vizianagram 30 A. 488 : A.W.N. (1908) 210 ...
Tag this Judgment!Batasi Lal Vs. Arjun Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.777
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The facts are these:-- One Karan Singh executed a deed of conditional sale in favour of Batasi Lal, the defendant-appellant. Subsequently he sold his interests in the mortgaged property i.e., the equity of redemption, to Net Ram defendant. Net Ram and Batasi Lal brought a suit for foreclosure and obtained a decree on the 4th September 1901, which was subsequently .made absolute. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff, who is the brother of Karan Singh, to pre-empt the absolute sale which has taken place in consequence of the foreclosure decree. After the purchase made by Net Ram from Karan Singh, a partition of the village was effected and the property in question was formed into a separate mahal. The plaintiff claims pre-emption, first, as the brother of Karan Singh and, secondly,as owning a share in the village. He is not a co-sharer in the mahal in which the property in suit is situate. The Wajib-ul-...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Misir and ors. Vs. Jaggu Tiwari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.930
1. This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. The defendant Hazari executed in favour of the defendant Jaggu a perpetual lease which purports to be a lease of a share; in Manga Bichhanpur, District Ghazipur, at any early rent or Rs. 5-14-6 on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,430. The plaintiffs who are shareholders in the village claim the right to preempt this transaction relying on a custom prevailing in the village and recorded in the Wajib-ul-arz of the village. The custom is I hat whenever any co-sharer transfers (intiqal) his share (hakkiat) in any mahal, he shall transfer it first to near co-sharer and after that to a remote co-sharer in his patti etc. The plaintiffs claim the right to preempt the transfer made to the defendant Jaggu on the allegation that it is a transfer within the meaning of the Wajlb-ul-arz. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim but upon appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the Court below on the ground that the transac...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Muhammad Sadiq Vs. Ghaus Muhammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.200
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 19th of January 1886, executed in favour of one Chet Ram. It has been found that Chet Ram was only banamidar for the vendors of the plaintiff and that those persons were the real mortgagees. On the 13th of July 1886, the heirs of the mortgagors sold a portion of the mortgaged property to Vilayati Begam, the mother of the appellant Muhammad Sadik. The consideration, for the sale was Rs. 875 and it was stated in the sale-deed that the vendors had received the whole of the amount of the consideration in cash, but had left it with the vendee to pay off debts due to Chet Ram and Kadher Mal and that the vendee was to pay those debts and obtain receipts from the creditors. One of the debts, which the vendee undertook to discharge, was the debt due under the mortgage deed of the 19th of January 1886, of which Chet Ram was the nominal mortgagee. Vilayati Begam made a gift of the property to the appellant, Muhammad Sadik. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.910
Chamier, J.1. The 1st and 2nd grounds taken in the application for revision are abandoned. The 3rd only is pressed. It is to the effect that the Magistrate acted wrongly in refusing to accept the sureties tendered by the applicant. The Magistrate appears to have refused the sureties on the strength of a statement by a Sub-Inspector of Police that they lived 9 or 10 miles from the applicant and were on friendly terms with him. If they were not on friendly terms with him, they would probably not have stood surety for him. I see no reason why, it otherwise fit, they should be rejected on the ground that they live 10 miles away. The applicant was not required to produce residents of his own village as sureties. 1 gather from the Magistrate's order that he would not have rejected the sureties merely because they lived 10 miles away. Unnecessary difficulties should not be thrown in the way of people required to give security. I direct that the sureties be accepted....
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Chhidhu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.468
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for sale upon two mortgages, executed by Hira Singh and Gambhir Singh on the 28th November 1890. On the 16th of December 1870, those persons had executed a mortgage in favour of Ganga Ram, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and the property now sought to be sold was comprised in that mortgage. On the 21st Jane 1884, Ganga Ram obtained a decree for sale upon the mortgage of 16th December 1870. A sum of Rs. 489 remained due on account of the decree so obtained and accordingly on the 28th November 1890, Hira Singh and Gambhir Singh executed a zer-i-peshgi lease for Rs. 409, part of the said amount and they also executed a simple mortgage-deed for Rs. 95 which included Rs. 80 due upon the decree. These are the mortgages which the plaintiff seeks to enforce. Before the execution of these mortgages i.e., on 22nd June 1876, Gambhir Singh and Hira Singh mortgaged the same property to Panna Lal who is now represented ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Sudarshan Das Shastri Vs. Ram Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.385
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage of the 7th of June 1874. The mortgage is a usufructuary mortgage and the principal sum secured by it is only Rs. 100. The Court of first instance gave a decree to plaintiffs for redemption and awarded them a sum of Rs. 4,267-12-2 as representing rents and profits which came into the hands of the mortgagee during his possession Of the mortgaged property over and above the interest chargeable on the mortgage. Upon appeal this decree was affirmed. This second appeal has been preferred and two points have been argued before us by Mr. Wallach, the learned counsel for the appellant. The first of these is based on the provisions of Section X of Regulation XV of 1793. This section provides for the interest which is to be allowed on mortgage securities executed subsequent to the 28th March 1880 and prescribes that all such mortgages are to be considered as 'virtually and in effect cancelled and redeemed whenever the principal and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »