Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.335
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued upon a registered mortgage-deed for Rs. 25, dated the 25th of July 1876, by which Bhoop Singh purported to hypothecate four plots of land, the areas of which are specified, situated in mauza, Nagla Salend. It has been found by the lower Appellate Court, and I am bound by that finding, that the name of mauza Nagala Salendi was inserted in the mortgage-deed by mistake and that the parties- intended to mortgage four plots of land of corresponding areas and bearing the fields numbers specified, but situated in mauza Arazi Zabti. The heirs of Bhoop Singh sold their proprietary rights in mauza Arazi Zabti, or at any rate a share in the proprietary rights including the said rights in the plots to which this mortgage relates, to the defendant-appellant, Mr. H. B. Kinlock, under a registered deed of sale, dated the 16th of February 1910. The plaintiff came into Court without producing the original mortgage-deed, and the explanation offered in paragr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.336
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money. The plaintiffs allege that there was a contract between themselves and the defendants that the plaintiffs should purchase grain for the defendants and store it in their godown, that the defendants should pay interest on the outlay, make a deposit to cover losses and that the defendants should be entitled to any profits that were made upon the re-sale of the grain by the plaintiffs. The transactions between the parties commenced in the year 1902 and the last transaction was a sale on the 4th of February 1906, when there was a balance against the defendants. The suit was instituted on the 8th of February 1909. The only question argued in the appeal is whether or not the suit is barred by limitation.2. The defendants contend that Article 61 applies and the suit was barred after three years from the time that the plaintiffs made the last purchase on their behalf. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that Article 120 applies and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.487
Chamier, J.1. The facts of this case are that one Jobraj Rai sold part of his share in a village to the predecessor of the plaintiff in 1875 and sold the remainder of the share to the defendants in 1881.2. Jobraj Rai became ex-proprietary tenant of 12 bighas odd which included the three plots now in suit. Jobraj Rai relinquished his holding in favour of the predecesssor of the plaintiff, and it is on the strength of that relinquishment that the plaintiff has now sued for exclusive possession of the three plots.3. According to the decision of this Court, Jobraj Rai was tenant of all the proprietors, and the relinquishment of his ex-proprietary holding by him enured for the benefit of all the co-sharers. The plaintiff is certainly not entitled to proprietary rights in the land to the exclusion of the defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants are co-sharers of the land and the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for joint possession with the defendants. One of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.625
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit for foreclosure upon an unregistered mortgage made by the respondent. Ram Prasad, in favour of the respondent, Bachcha Singh, in March 1896. The mortgage was without possession. The mortgaged property-was brought to sale in 1905, in execution of a simple money decree passed against the mortgagor, and was purchased by the appellant, Ganga Dyal, who entered into possession. In July 1910, Ganga Dyal sold the property to the appellants. Ram Lal and Bindra. In September 1910, Ram Lal and Bindra re-sold half of the property to Ganga Dyal. The appellants resisted the suit on the ground that they were purchasers for value without notice of the unregistered mortgage, and, therefore, the registered deed in their favour must take effect against the unregistered deed. The Munsif upheld this defence and dismissed the suit ; but his decision was reversed by the District Judge.2. According to the decisions in Sobhagchand v. Bhaichand 6 B. 193 and Ramaraja v. Arunachala 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.339
Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration of his title to a one-anna share of zemindari which under partition has now been declared to be a sixteen-anna mahal and a house This property stood recorded in the names of Musammat Marjodi and Sri Govind Singh and the mahal was formed in the name of Sri Govind Singh. The plaintiff is one of the two grandsons of Raghubans Singh, who was one of the sons of Asman Singh. It is common ground that after the death of Asman Singh a partition took place, between his sons, of the four-annas share which belonged. to him. The plaintiff states that he and his brother Ram Jewan Singh were joint with their father, that Ram Jewan Singh predeceased his father so that the whole property which belonged to the father passed to the plaintiff alone by right of survivorship, that he caused the name of Musammat Marjodi, the widow of Ram Jewan Singh, to be entered in the revenue papers, for her consol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.295
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage which was decreed by the first Court. Jangli Sahu, one of the defendants, appealed but did not make Har Sewak Man Tewari, the mortgagor, and Jagai Tewari, a subsequent mortgagee, respondents to the appeal. His case was that he was a purchaser of the property in lieu of the mortgages which had priority over the plaintiffs mortgage, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to bring the property to sale unless they had redeemed the prior mortgages. At the hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that nonjoinder of the two aforesaid persons was fatal ' to the appeal. The lower Appellate Court gave effect to the objection and dismissed the appeal refusing to make those persons parties to the appeal. It says: 'I see no reason to allow parties to be added now.' In second appeal to this Court it is contended that under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20, the Court had discretion to make those persons respondents to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.607
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property and mesne profits. The plaintiffs are the reversioners of the last male owner and have brought their suit on the death of the last remaining widow against the daughters, and one daughter's son. Under Hindu Law, the daughters are entitled to succeed. The parties are Jats resident in the Sardliana Tahsil of the Meerut District. The plaintiffs, accordingly in para. 6 of the plaint, pleaded that according to a custom prevalent in the caste and brotherhood of their family, daughters and daughter's sons were excluded from inheritance and the defendants, therefore, had no title.2. The main defence was a denial of the custom and a claim based on the ordinary Hindu Law.3. The Court of first instance held that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs did not establish an immemorial invariable custom and dismissed the suit.4. The lower Appellate Court held that the evidence sufficiently established the custom and decreed the suit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All596
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The pre-emptor succeeded in his suit for pre-emption. The first court ordered him to deposit Rs. 6,800. He carried out the order of the court. Subsequently, in execution of his own decree for costs, he attached and got a sum of Rs. 314-8-0, out of the sum deposited by him. There was an appeal in the pr-emption suit to this Court, and this Court modified the decree of the first court by ordering the pre-emptor to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000, instead of Rs. 6,800. He deposited in compliance with the order of this Court an extra sum of Rs. 3,200. This deposit was made in time. The judgment-debtor took objection to this deposit on the ground that it was not a compliance with the order of the High Court, inasmuch as the decree-holder had taken out the sum of Rs. 314-8-0 out of the sum previously deposited by him. The court below disallowed the objection. Hence this appeal. There is a series of decisions of this Court; see Ishri v. Gopal Saran (1888) I.L.R. 10 A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.485
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim for pre emption based on Muhammadan Law. The suit was also based on custom, but the Courts below found that the alleged custom was not proved, so that the claim is one under the Muhammadan Law, and the only question in, whether the requirements of that law as to preliminary demands have been complied with. It is admitted that the first demand (talab-i-mowasibat) was performed. The dispute between the parties relates to the performance of the second demand, viz., talab-i-ishtishad, or invocation in the presence of witnesses. The rule ordinarily is that this demand should be made in presence of witnesses either before the vendor or the vendee or on the premises. In this case, the demand was not made in the presence of the vendee or on the premises, but it was made in the presence of witnesses before the vendor. The question is, whether such a demand is valid under the Muharnmadan Law. It seems on the authorities that the validity of a deman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 15Ind.Cas.337
1. The pre-emptor succeeded in his suit for pre-emption. The Brat Court ordered him to deposit Rs. 6,800. He carried out the order of the Court. Subsequently, in execution of his own decree for costs he attached and got a sum of Rs. 314-8 out of the sum. deposited by him. There was an appeal in the pre emption suit to this Court, and this Court modified the decree of the first Court by ordering the pre-emptor to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 instead of Rs. 6,800. He deposited, in compliance with the order of this Court, an extra sum of Rs. 3,200. This deposit was made in time. The judgment-debtor took objection to this deposit on the ground that it was not a compliance with the order of the High Court inasmuch as the decree-holder has taken out the sum of Rs. 314-8 out of the sum previously deposited by him. The Court below disallowed the objection. Hence this appeal: There is a series of decisions of this Court. See Ishri v. Gopal Saran 6 A. 351; Balmukand v. Pancham 10 A. 400; Permanand Ra...
Tag this Judgment!