Allahabad Court November 1912 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.
Gauri Bai and ors. Vs. Manohar Teli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.520
Griffin, J.1. The appellants in this case alleged that they were the occupancy-tenants of two plots Nos. 358 and 181, and that they had mortgaged these plots by two separate mortgages to defendants. They sued for redemption. This suit has been decreed with regard to plot No. 181, but it has been dismissed by both the Courts below with regard to plot No. 358. The lower Appellate Court finds as a fact that there was no legal mortgage over this plot, inasmuch as the mortgage alleged was for a sum of over Rs. 100 and the document was not registered. The plaintiffs come in second appeal to this Court. The defendants had denied the existence of a mortgage over plot No. 358 and alleged that they were the sub-tenants of the plaintiffs in respect of that plot. It is contended in second appeal that in view of the pleadings of the defendant, it was incumbent on the Courts below to require the defendants to institute a suit in the Revenue Court within three months for a determination of the questi...
Dharam Kirti Saran and ors. Vs. Sabta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All107
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 20 of 1911 arise out of two suits brought for partition of certain property which originally belonged to Sahu Radha Kishan.2. The plaintiffs to the two suits are the descendants of Sahu Ganga Sahai and Sahu Gokal Prasad, two of the sons of Sahu Radha Kishan. One Musammat Janki was made a defendant to the suit: she is the widow of Sahu Shiam Saran, one of the sons of Sahu Ganga Sahai. All the parties to the two suits referred their disputes to arbitration, save and except Musammat Janki, who did not join in the submission. A decree was made by the arbitrator, who was the Subordinate Judge in whose court the suits were filed, and who was appointed arbitrator not only with the consent of the parties but also with the sanction of the Government. Decrees have been passed in both the suits in accordance with the award, and it is against these decrees that the two appeals before us have been preferred as also the ap...
Karta Kishan Vs. Harnam Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All72
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The only question which has been argued in this appeal is whether or not the mortgage sued upon was duly presented and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The document was in fact registered. It has an endorsement that it was 'presented' for registration in the office of the sub-registrar. Below this is the name of a person which is variously read as Santh, Natha, or Sehua. He is described as the servant of the mortgagee. The mortgagor in answer to the interrogatories served upon him admits that he was present when the document was being registered and when it was handed over to the sub-registrar. He cannot remember apparently who actually handed over the document, but he says that some person whose name, probably, was Santha, handed over the document. It is clear, however, from the admitted facts in the case that at the time of registration the mortgagor was present assenting to the registration of th...
Kirta Kishen Vs. Harnam Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.465
1. The only question which has been argued in this appeal is whether or not the mortgage sued upon was duly presented and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The document was in fact registered. It has an endorsement that it was presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar. Below this is the name of a person which is variously read as Santha, Nanha, Natha or Sehna. He is described as the servant of the mortgagee. The mortgagor, in answer to the interrogatories served upon him, admits that he was present when the document was being registered and when it was handed over to the Sub-Registrar. He cannot remember apparently who actually handed over the document but he says that some person, whose name probably was Santha, handed over the document. It is clear, however, from the admitted facts in the case that at the time of registration, the mortgagor was present assenting to the registration of the document with full knowledge of w...
Dost Muhammad Vs. Altaf HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.512
Chamier, J.1. One Muhammad Said sued for some immoveable property. On February 2nd, 1011, a compromise was arrived at according to which Muhammad Said became entitled to a part of the property. On February 21st, 1911, he transferred to one Altaf Husain all the property to which he was entitled under the compromise. Altaf Husain did not apply to the Court to enter his name on the record in place of that of Muhammad Said and on March 25th, 1911, a decree was passed on the compromise in favour of Muhammad Said. Altaf Husain has now applied to execute the decree. The Munsif rejected the application; but the District Judge reversed his order. Hence this appeal. There is no doubt that Altaf Husain ought to have taken steps to have his name entered in the record of the case. But it is urged on his behalf that he is the representative of Muhammad Said and that the District Judge was right in regarding him as the transferee of the decree. It seems to me that it is impossible to treat Altaf Husa...
Deokinandan Pershad and ors. Vs. Bindeshwari Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.523
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit for declaration of title to the sites of four houses in Mohalla Nawabganj in the town of Ghazipur and for three years' arrears of parjawat, a kind of ground-rent. The plaint was amended by the addition of a prayer for 'proprietary possession' of the land as it was feared that the claim for a declaration of title might be held to be barred by limitation. The Courts below have agreed in giving the plaintiffs a decree for proprietary possession and for the arrears of parjawat.2. The grounds of appeal are many, but two points only have been pressed before me, namely, that the claim to a decree for proprietary possession is not maintainable and that the whole claim is barred by the long continued adverse possession of the defendant.3. It has bean found that the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the land and that they or rather their predecessors have received parjawat from the holders for the time being of the houses, but the parjawat has not been paid for a gr...
Sampat Rai Vs. Ram Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.517
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage made in March 1908. The sum advanced was Rs. 900. The arrangement was that the mortgagor would pay the mortgagee twelve annual instalments of Rs. 100 and a thirteenth instalment of Rs. 50. In default of payment of any instalment, the whole was to become due with interest at two par cent. par mensem compounded yearly. The plaintiff, who purchased the property from the mortgagor in June 1910, seat the mortgagee Rs. 300 in September 1910 which the mortgagee accepted. The plaintiff followed this up with a tender of Rs. 950 in full discharge of the mortgage. This was refused and the present suit was brought on October 1st, 1910, the plaintiff paying Rs. 950 into Court. The first Court held that the mortgagee had waived his right to insist upon the penal clause and made a decree accordingly. On appeal, the District Judge held that there had been no waiver and he made a decree for redemption on payment of the principal sum with intere...
Gopal Das Vs. Chedi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.591
Henry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to have it declared that the sale of a certain house held in execution of a decree was null and void so far as the plaintiff's interest in the house was concerned. Gopal Das the plaintiff, is the grandson of one Parbhu Lal against whom one Budhsen held a decree. In execution of that decree, a house was sold and purchased by Chedi Lal respondent in this Court. The date of the auction-sale was the 22nd of September 1908 But on the 19th of September, the judgment debtor, Parbhu Lal, had sold another house to the decree-holder and in the sale-deed the decretal amount was set off against part of the consideration. Thus on the date of the sale, the decree had already been satisfied, although satisfaction was not certified to the Court executing the decree When Chedi Lal sought possession of the house, he was resisted by the plaintiff. The latter's objection was disallowed by the Court on the 26th of February 1910 The present suit was insti...
Sheopher Singh and ors. Vs. Deo NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.675
Chamier, J.1. In this case, the Courts below have agreed in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of their rights in certain land. The defendants have appealed to this Court contending that according to the rulings of this Court, the plaintiffs' claim to a declaration is barred by limitation. The other grounds of appeal have been abandoned before me.2. The facts found are that the plaintiffs have all along been in possession of the land in question and were recorded as the proprietors thereof at the fifth Settlement. At the sixth Settlement, owing, it would seem, to the introduction of a new method of recording shares, the Settlement Authorities made an entry in respect of this land which showed that the plaintiffs were entitled to a smaller area. They objected to the entry but their objection was thrown out in November 1901. They nevertheless remained in undisturbed possession of all the land to which they were entitled. In April 1909, the Collector ordered that th...
Fateh Bahadur and ors. Vs. Lalta Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.488
1. Nand Kumar and Kumar Bahadur owned the village of Ismailpar in equal shares. The shares of the two were known as ten biswas each. On January 3rd, 1905, Nand Kumar and Kumar Bahadur executed a lease of the village in favour of Lalta Pershad reserving an annual rent of Rs. 195. On July 5th, 1907, Nand Kumar executed a deed of gift in favour of his three minor sons, the plaintiffs-appellants, in respect of 9 biswas and 15 biswansis share out of his 10 biswas share in Ismailpur. On October 8th, 1910, the plaintiffs appellants instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Farrukhabad to recover their share of rent for 1315 to 1317 Faslis. It was alleged in the plaint that they had sued for their share only as the other co-sharers, viz., Nand Kumar and Kumar Bahadur, had declined to join them in the suit for which reason the latter had been made co-defendants with Lalta Pershad. Lalta Pershad alone resisted the suit. He stated in defence that the rent for the years in suit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »