Allahabad Court November 1911 Judgments
Mewa Lal and anr. Vs. Ahmad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.929
1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The appellants obtained a decree on the 18th of December 1895, against the opposite party. On the 12th of September 1907, they applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. This was the last one of the applications made within the period of 12 years from the date of the decree. Several attempts were made to arrest the judgment-debtor who successfully evaded them until one day he inadvertently attended the Court, thinking that he was protected from arrest by some provision of law. He was arrested, and he at once applied the Court to be allowed to apply in an insolvency Court to bi declared insolvent. He put in his application, and for two years the proceedings continued in the insolvency Court until they were finally struck off for want of prosecution. In the meantime, the appellants had applied for attachment of certain property. That property was released on an objection preferred by the judgment-debtor's wife to the effect that it ...
Tag this Judgment!Balmakund Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.943
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal to that Court as barred by limitation. The decree to the first Court was passed on the 29th September 1910. The Courts were closed from the 30th of September to the 4th of November and re-opened on the 5th of November The appellant applied for the necessary copies on the 29th of September, but the folios could not be obtained. He applied again on the 5th of November, and on the 10th of November the usual notice was posted on the notice-board. On the evening of the 10th or the morning of the 11th, the Munsif's office despatched the copies by post to Cawnpore to the address given on the appellant's application. The cover containing the copies reached the appellant sometime on the 11th. His Pleader says it was on the evening of the 11th. The appeal was filed on the 12th. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes has declined to hold that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand Mukerji Vs. Afzal Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All184
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. This was a suit by the appellant for partition of a house and its appurtenances in Dehra Dun. The appellant paid a court fee stamp of Rs. 10 on his plaint under the Court Fees Act, schedule II, Article 17(vi). The respondents pleaded that the court fee paid was insufficient. They contended that it should be calculated on the value of the property. The court below acceded to this contention and appointed a commissioner to inquire into the value of the property. The commissioner reported that the value of the whole property was Rs. 22,000 and that the value of the plaintiff's share therein was Rs. 16,500. The court then held that the plaint should have borne a court fee stamp of Rs. 57 and called on the appellant to make good the deficiency. The appellant having declined to do so, the court dismissed the suit. Several decisions were cited in the court below. We think that it is unnecessary to set them out here.2. In the case of Reoti v. Lachhman Weekly N...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.657
Richards, C.J.1. This is an application to set aside the orders of two Magistrates of the first class, granting sanction to prosecute under Sections 193 and 211 of Indian Penal Code. The application for sanction was not made before the same Magistrate as had originally tried the case, but it was made to his successor who granted sanction. There was an appeal to the District Magistrate who apparently directed that the appeal should be heard by another Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him. The learned District Magistrate was evidently exercising what he considered to be the power vested in him under Section 407. In my opinion this section does not entitle the District Magistrate to send appeals under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him. The section deals with appeals from convictions. This view of the section was taken in the case of Sadhu Lal v. Ram Churn Pasi 30 C. 394. I, therefore, allow the application, set asi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All244
H.G. Richards, C.J.1. This is an application to set aside the orders of two Magistrates of the first class, granting sanction to prosecute under Sections 193 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for sanction was not made before the same Magistrate as had originally tried the case, but it was made to his successor, who granted sanction. There was an appeal to the District Magistrate, who apparently directed that the appeal should be heard by another Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him. The learned District Magistrate w as evidently exercising what he considered to be the power vested in him under Section 407. In my opinion this Section does not entitle the District Magistrate to send appeals under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to a Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him. The Section deals with appeals from convictions. This view of the Section was taken in the case of Sadhu Lall v. Ram Churn Pasi (1903) I.L.R. 30 Calc. 394. I therefore al...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Chand Mukerji Vs. Mirza Afzal Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.185
1. This was a suit by the appellant for partition of a house and its appurtenances in Dehra Dun. The appellant paid a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 on his plaint under the Court Fees Act, Schedule II, Article 17(VI). The respondents pleaded that the Court-fee paid was insufficient. They contended that it should be caloulated on the value of the property. The Court below acceded to this contention and appointed a Commissioner to inquire into the value of the property. The Commissioner reported that the value of the whole property was Rs. 22,000 and that the value of the plaintiffs share therein was Rs. 16,500. The Court then held that the plaint should have borne a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 570 and called on the appellant to make good deficiency. The appellant having declined to do so the Court dismissed the suit. Several decisions were cited in the Court below. We think that it is unnecessary to set them out here. In the case of Reoti v. Lachhman A.W.N. (1900) 90 this Court, following decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Ghansham Singh Vs. Teg Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.191
1. Ram Rikha Singh died in 1893, leaving him surviving his mother Ganga Kuowar and his widows, Ajudhia Kunwar and Hardei and the names of all the three women were entered on the Revenue Records. In February and September 1902, the three ladies transferred parts of the estate of Ram Rikha Singh to the defendant GhanshamSingh. In October 1905, Ganga Kunwar died. In the present suit, instituted in September 1909, the plaintiff, who claims to be one of the presumptive reversionary heirs of Ram Rikha Singh, prayed that the deeds of gift of February and September 1902 might be declared void and ineffectual so far as he is concerned and he also prayed for possession, of one sixth share in the property. The claim for possession has been dismissed and the correctness of that part of the decree is not challenged. The defendants pleaded in the Court below that if the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the deeds of gift were void and ineffectual as against him, that declaration should be...
Tag this Judgment!Khazan Singh Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.131
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the appellant on a demand promissory-note for Rs. 718, signed on March 13th, 1907, by Naurang Mal and Murli Dhar, who are now represented by the respondent and others. The appellant stated in the plaint that the maker of the note had borrowed two sums of Rs. 150 and Rs. 170 in April and June 1907 on mortgages and left the money with the appellant's brother Mittar Sen to be paid to the appellants on account of the note but the money had not been paid, therefore, the appellant claimed the whole amount for which the note was given and interest thereon at the rate stated in the note. The respondent's defence was that the appellant and his brother Mittar Sen were joint in estate, that a dispute between the appellant and the makers of the note had been referred to the arbitration of Umrao Singh and Newal Singh with the result that it was decided that the two mortgages mentioned above should be made for sum aggregating Rs. 320, and the balance Rs. 400 should b...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhai Lal and anr. Vs. Hulas Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.939
1. This was a suit by the appellants upon a mortgage made in their favour by one Ganga Ram Singh, on March the 24tb, 1890. The principal sum secured was Rs. 600, and the mortgagor agreed to pay compound interest with yearly rests at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem. The appellants in their plaint say that there is due to them Rs. 600 on account of principal and Rs. 402 on account of interest, but they claim only Rs. 10,500. The first respondent, Hulas Singh, resisted the suit on the ground that there was no consideration for the mortgage and en the ground that the mortgagor was incapable of understanding the transaction, and that the interest was penal and excessive and should not be allowed. The respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are the sons of Gauri Sahai, who purchased the mortgaged property in. execution of a decree obtained by him against the mortgagor upon an unregistered mortgage of May 17th, 1888. These respondents pleaded, and it is now admitted, that the mortgagor, on March 2nd, 1690...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Das and anr. Vs. Ram Rikh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.142
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage-bond dated the 1st June 1897 said to have been executed by Mir Singh and Ram Rikh. Mir Singh and Ram Rikh were brothers, members of a joint Hindu family, and both of them had issue. The sons were made parties to the suit on the express ground that the property was ancestral property and that the debt was binding upon the family. The mortgage bond was not forthcoming. This fact was stated in the plaint and a copy of the bond was produced but not the original. Written statements were put in by Ram Rikh, Mir Singh and Jaimal, son of Mir Singh, the main defence being that the bond had been paid off, and that the allegation of its loss was false. While the suit was pending Mir Singh died, and his son, who was already on the record as a member of the joint family, was placed on the record as the representative of his father Mir Singh. A writ (sic) statement on his behalf was filed on the (sic) March 1910, the written statement on (sic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »