Allahabad Court March 1911 Judgments
Colonel Lecky Vs. Bank of Upper India, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1023
1. On the 24th day of December 1900 the Bank of Upper India Limited obtained a money-decree against three Officers of His Majesty's Regular Forces. No application for execution of this, decree, as the term is ordinarily understood, was made until the 8th day of April 1910 when the decree-creditor applied to the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for execution of the decree by attachment of half of the salary of one of the said Officers, Colonel R. Lecky, appellant to this appeal.2. The judgment-debtor, Colonel R. Lecky, objected to the attachment proposed by the decree-creditor on the grounds that:1. the application was barred;2. his salary was not liable to attachment;3. the decree does not empower the decree-holder to realise under it certain premiums alleged by the decree-holder to have been paid in order to keep alive certain insurance policies held by the Bank as security for the monies originally advanced by the said Bank.3. Other objections were raised, but the present appeal is not co...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanda Singh Vs. Sheikh Wahed-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1013
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of an alleged mortgage. The Court' of first instance dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed, and the appeal coming before a Bench of this Court, consisting of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banerji, the learned Judges differed, hence the present appeal under the Letters Patent.2. The facts appear very fully from the judgments of our learned brothers, and it is only necessary very shortly to refer to them.3. On the 29th of August 1852, the predecessors in title of the plaintiff executed a deed in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendants. This document, on the face of it, was an out and out transfer by way of sale of the properties now sought to be redeemed.4. On the 5th of September 1852, another deed was entered into between the same parties. This document recites the sale-deed of the 29th August and proceeds as follows:As we, the executants, are now willing to help and treat with...
Tag this Judgment!Mumtaz HusaIn Vs. A.E. Lewis
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.984
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for an assault committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. The facts of the case are stated at length in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them. The assault is not disputed and the only question for the Courts below to consider was the question of damages. The Court of first instance considered that the assault was an aggravated one and there is no doubt that it was correct as to this. That Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,300. An appeal was preferred and the learned District Judge, who considered carefully the evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant acted under great provocation and in view of the circumstances held that Rs. 150 was, under the circumstances, sufficient compensation. He also found that the claim of the plaintiff was exaggerated and that part of the injuries of which he complained was sustained after the date of the assault.2. The measure of damages is...
Tag this Judgment!Harduari Lal and anr. Vs. Musammat Gomi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1017
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a Will alleged to have been executed by one Lallu Mal in favour of his wife Jasodha on the 29th of June 1903, as also a Will made by Musammat Jasodha on the 5th of May 1908, are void by reason of the fact among others that both Lallu Mal and Jasodha were under the age of 18 years at the date of the execution of the respective documents. It is admitted that both Lallu Mal and Musammat Jasodha were over the age of 16 but under the age of 18 years. The contention on behalf of the defend ant-respondent is that both being Hindus and having attained the age of 16 years were capable of disposing of their property by Will. The Court below held that Lallu Mal and Jasodha were competent to execute the Wills in question, and that having done so with full knowledge of their contents and being of full testamentary capacity the Wills were valid and the plaintiffs' suit failed. This appeal was then preferred, and the main contention on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Kalla and ors. Vs. Hargian and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1911
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.907
1. On the 29th of January 1909, Hargian, Bhogi Ram, Paran Sukh and Khachera executed a mortgage with possession in favour of Manik to secure a sum of Rs. 1,500. The entire property mortgaged was 26 bighas. 5 biswas. The share of Hargian in that was 4 bighas, 18 biswas, that of Bhogi Ram, 1 bigha, 12 biswas, and the remaining 19 bighas, 15 biswas, belonged to Paran Sukh and Khachera. The mortgagors undertook a liability joint as well as several to pay the mortgage-debt. On the same day Hargian, executed a deed by way of Mashrut-ul-rehan (a further charge) in favour of Manik, in which he mortgaged his own share amounting to 4 bighas, 18 biswas, for a sum of Rs. 99. In this separate deed by way of Mashrul-ul-rehan, he stipulated that at the time of redeeming the mortgage executed jointly by him and three other persons, he would pay the money due under this separate deed. There in a recital in the mortgage-deed that a sum of Rs. 150 was due by Hargian to Kalla and others. The plaintiffs th...
Tag this Judgment!Dip NaraIn Singh Vs. Bhagwat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.911
John Stanley, C.J.1. In my opinion the decision of the learned Judge of this Court, which is in agreement with the views of both the lower Courts, is correct. The only question for determination is whether the record of the right of pre-emption contained in the wajib-ul-arz of 1870 is of a right existing by contract or by custom. The wajib-ul-arzes were produced in evidence, the earliest being of 1839. In that wajib-ul-arz the record of the right of pre-emption is stated in general terms: the right to pre-empt being given to co-sharers generally. The next wajib-ul-arz is that of 1863 and in it we find two clauses of pre-emptors; the first being near co-sharers and the second co sharers in other thoks. Then we come to the wajib-ul-arz of 1870, and in it, as it appears to me, a new classification of pre-emptors is set forth. The categories are: (1) near pattidars (2); pattidars of the thoks, and (3) pattidars of the village. According to the wajib-ul-arz of 1863, the co-sharers in other ...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwa Ram and anr. Vs. Kalyan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.983
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal arises claimed to be entitled to the property which formerly was in the ownership of Bhojraj, deceased. The defendant first party claims to be the owner of the property under a gift from Musammat Ram Kuar, the daughter of Bhojraj. Ram Kuar is dead The Courts below held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the rule of res judicata and the decision of this Court was upheld by the learned Judge of this Court against whose decree this appeal has been preferred under the Letters Patent. The former suit was a suit by the plaintiffs against Ram Kuar for recovery of the property in dispute on the allegation that it belonged to Dhani Rani, who is said to have been the brother of Bhojraj. In that suit the plaintiffs relied upon a pedigree showing the relationship of the parties. The Court of first instance held in it that the relationship was not established and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court found that the prope...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. Gobind Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.1022
Karamat Husain, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute between two persons who are both of them subject to the provisions of Local Act No. II of 1901. The respondent, Gobind Ram, was plaintiff and claimed to be the sole tenant of a large occupancy-holding. He first went to the Revenue Court and filed an application in that Court for the ejectment of the appellant, Narain Singh, his nephew, alleging that Narain Singh was his sub-tenant of a part of a large holding. The application was dismissed. The Commissioner held that Narain Singh had made out his plea that he was an occupancy-tenant and not a sub-tenant. This decision was confirmed by the Board of Revenue. Whether it was necessary or not to go so far as the Revenue Courts went we need not consider. Gobind Ram then came to the Civil Court and filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, to eject the defendant from that part of the occupancy-holding which is in his possession. He in the plaint alleged that the land he...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pershad and anr. Vs. Khem Karan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.978
1. The plaintiff in this case brought an action for redemption of a mortgage dated the 9th of September 1872 and claimed account. The material portion of the mortgage-deed may be rendered as follows:This condition has been agreed upon that whatever may be the income of the property (biswat) mortgaged the mortgagees will be entitled to it (and that) I shall claim no account. As the income (of the mortgaged property) is not sufficient for the payment of the interest which is at the rate of ten annas per cent, per month I shall pay from my own pocket to the mortgagees a yearly sum of Rs. 35.... I shall redeem (the property) whenever I pay the whole of the principal and interest.2. One of the pleas in defence was that the plaintiff, in consequence of the express agreement that he could not claim accounts, was debarred from such a claim. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for redemption but rejected the claim for an account. On appeal the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.991
ORDERRichards, J.1. This is an application in revision to set aside two orders of Mr. Harper, a Magistrate of 1st class, Cawnpore, and an order of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore upholding the said two orders. The facts are shortly as follows: On the 21st of January of the present year one Nanhe Mal presented a complaint to Mr. Harper charging Mool Chand the applicant here with an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, the allegation being that he as manager or the Managing Director of a certain Company in which Nanhe Mal was a share-holder had misapplied funds belonging' to the Company. At the same time, an application was made to the Magistrate to issue a search-warrant. In the order of the 26th of January of the present year, the learned Magistrate sets forth what he says, were the circumstances. He says: 'On the 21st instant one Nanhe Mal came to Court and presented petition to the effect that his fellow Company Director Mool Chand committed criminal breach of trust as regard...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »