Allahabad Court December 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.
Hori Lal and anr. Vs. Munman Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-27-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All549
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage. The mortgage was dated the 14th of November, 1870. The mortgagee was one Dharam Singh, husband of the plaintiff, and the mortgagor was one Naiti Singh. Tilok Ram purchased the mortgaged property on the 7th of January, 1889, and the defendants, Hori Lal and Jagannath, are the sons of Tilok Ram, who is now dead. They pleaded amongst other that their four sons, constituting with themselves a joint Hindu family, were not made parties to the suit. This is the plea with which we are concerned in the present appeal. Having regard to the respective dates of the mortgage and of the institution of the suit, the non-joinder of parties, if such there was, could not be cured by making the sons of Hori Lal and Jagannath parties, because the at the time their absence was pleaded, was barred by limitation. Order XXXIV, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides as follows:Subject to the provisions of this Cod...
Atma Ram and ors. Vs. Ugra Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All134
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J.1. The only question which has been argued here is whether the documents, the foundation of the present suit, were or were not duly registered. It appears that the documents were brought to the Sub-Registrar by persons who were not duly authorized to present the documents for registration in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act. It, however, also appears that on the same date, if not at the same time, the mortgagor, being a person who was entitled to present the documents for registration, came to the Sub-Registrar's office and admitted execution, and that thereupon the documents were in fact registered. The question is whether or not this amounts to a good presentation within the meaning of the Registration Act. There cannot be the least doubt that the mortgagor was present as an assenting party to the documents being registered. The question involved Was very fully argued before a Full Bench of this Court in a recent case. At the conclusion of the arg...
Atma Ram and ors. Vs. Ugra SaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.697
Henry Richards, C.J.1. The only question which has been argued here is whether the documents, the foundation of the present suit, were or were not duly registered. It appears that the documents were brought to the Sub-Registrar by persons who were not duly authorized to present the documents for registration in the manner prescribed by the Registration Act. It, however, also appears that on the same date, if not at the same time, the mortgagor, being a person who was entitled to present the document for registration, came to the Sub-Registrar's Office, admitted execution, and that thereupon the documents were in fact registered. The question is whether or not this amounts to a good presentation within the meaning of the Registration Act. There cannot be the least doubt that the mortgager was present as an assenting party to the documents being registered. The question involved was very fully argued before a Full Bench of this Court in a recent case. At the conclusion of the arguments, ...
Loknath and anr. Vs. Manorath Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.613
Tudball, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of land together with mesne profits. The plaintiffs' case was dismissed by the Court below on the ground of limitation. Their claim was as follows;--The village in question has been partitioned into several mahals, of which Mahal Baldeo Sahai has been allotted to the plaintiffs, and Mahal Sahadra Bai has been allotted to the defendants. These two mahals lie side by side on the same bank of the river Ken. According to the plaintiffs, the bed of the river was also partitioned and one portion 51/2 was allotted to their mahal and another portion 51/5 was allotted to the defendants' mahal. The land in suit is part of the river-bed. I note that the claim is limited to what is described as plots Nos. 1--10 in the Kanungo's report. The plaintiffs state that these are part and parcel of plot 51/2 and belong to them and the defendants have taken possession within two years prior to the suit and that they ...
Jadunandan Lal Vs. Daulat Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.640
Henry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for partition by the Revenue Court. The appellant, Jadunandan Lal, filed objections. In the application for partition, the plaintiffs-respondents, who are the holders of a seven-anna share out of eight-annas in patti No. 1, asked for partition of their shares in the seven-anna share inter se. The objector, Jadunandan Lal, is a recorded co-sharer in respect of a one-anna share in the same patti as a mortgagor. His objections were two-fold, first, in respect of a one-anna share out of the seven-annas held by the plaintiffs, which he alleged the plaintiffs had bought from one Musammat Rup Kali. In respect of this share, his objection was that Musammat Rup Kali as a Hindu widow had no right to transfer, that he was now the owner of that share and that he intended to bring a suit to recover it. As he was not a recorded co-sharer in respect of that share, he had no right to object to its partition and the Courts below have rightly ...
Ralli Brothers Vs. Ambika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All132
Tudball, J.1. The opposite party to this application was a clerk in the employment of Ralli Brothers on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 per month. He left his service in the middle of the month without the consent of his employers, and he then brought the suit out of which this application has arisen to recover the salary for the broken portion of the month. He gave no previous notice of his intention to resign. The lower court has held that, as he is an office clerk and not a menial servant, the rule as to notice does not apply, and therefore he is entitled to recover the salary claimed. The question is one between master and servant. The plaintiff was engaged on a monthly salary, and he would therefore have been, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to one month's notice before dismissal. Equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. The lower court is of opinion that this rule applies only to menial servants. This opinion is by no means c...
Har Narayan Vs. Sheo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.95
Chamier, J.1. The respondent in his plaint claimed redemption of mortgage made on May 11th, 1849 to secure a sum of Rs. 22-8. The respondent is the purchaser of the right to redeem from the heirs of the original mortgagors. The defendant-appellant purchased the property sought to be redeemed by a deed dated October 13, 1906, in which his vendors stated that the property was held by them as mortgagees under a mortgage of June 11, 1849, made to secure the payment of a sum of Rs. 26. The Courts below have accepted the statement in the deed of October 13, 1906 as an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. They have found that the true date of the mortgage is May 11th, 1849, and the first point taken on behalf of the appellant is that the statement in the deed that the property is subject to a mortgage of June 11, 1849, cannot be treated as evidence of an acknowledgment regarding a mortgage of May 11, 1849. This question arose and was decided in Dip Singh v. G...
Babu Ram Vs. Jodha Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.690
Tudball, J.1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-applicant in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore to recover a principal sum of Rs. 200 plus interest at 12 per cent. per annum on a bond of the 3rd of October 1903. The bond was an instalment bond and the money was payable in four equal instalments of Rs. 50 each without interest on the four following dates: 29th of April 1904, 13th of May 1905, 8th of May 1906 and 27th of May 1907. There is a condition in the bond that if any instalment is not paid on the date, then it was open to the plaintiff to put on one side the condition of payment by instalments and to recover the whole of the money with interest at 12 per cent. per annum within the period fixed by the bond or the period fixed by the law. The defence to the suit was that the bond was without consideration, and secondly, that the suit was barred by time. The Court below has dismissed the suit holding that it is barred by time. The Article applicable i...
Ralli Brothers Vs. Amluka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.699
Tudball, J.1. The opposite party to this application was a clerk in the employment of Ralli Brothers on a monthly salary of Rs. 50 per month. He left his service in the middle of the month without the consent of his employers and he then brought the suit out of which this application has arisen to recover the salary for the broken portion of the month. He gave no previous notice of his intention to resign. The lower Court has held that as he is an office clerk and not a menial servant, the rule as to notice does not apply, and, therefore, he is entitled to recover the salary claimed. The question is one between master and servant. The plaintiff was engaged on a monthly salary and he would, therefore, have been, in the absence of contract to the contrary, entitled to one month's notice before his dismissal. Equally his master was entitled to one month's notice before he left service. The lower Court is of opinion that this rule applies only to menial servants. This opinion is by no mean...
Buldeo Vs. Edward Gardner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.286
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 1st of January 1882. The original sum secured by the mortgage was only Rs. 300 and the plaintiff now claims Rs. 11,000. The claim is certainly a stale one instituted just as limitation was about to expire. Various defences were raised and amongst them defences as to the execution of the bond and receipt of consideration. There was also a defence that the bond was never duly registered.2. We think that the last plea is fatal to the plaintiff's case. The Court below finds that the bond was given to the Registrar by the son of the mortgagor, who was not authorised to 'present' the document for registration as provided by Section 32 of the Registration Act. Subsequently, a commission was issued to a clerk of the Sub-Registrar to go to the house of the mortgagor to obtain his admission. The Court below did not believe the evidence of the plaintiff where he stated that he himself had given the bond to the Sub-Registrar. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »