Allahabad Court July 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.
Jugal Kishore Sahu and anr. Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.401
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage made in January 1888 in favour of the predecessor of the appellants. The mortgage covered shares in several villages including a two-annas share in a village, called Haria. In May 1895, the mortgagors sold a one-anna-six-pies share in Haria to one Asuda Bibi, leaving with her Rs. 500, part of the purchase money, to be paid to the appellants. That sum was paid to the appellants in July 1896 and a receipt given by them shows that they accepted the money in reduction of the amount due on the mortgage. In 1906, the appellants released the one-anna-six-pies share from the mortgage stating that they did so in consideration of the payment made to them in 1896. In the present suit, instituted in 1$10, the appellants claim to be entitled to bring the remainder of the mortgaged property to sale for the recovery of the whole amount remaining due upon the mortgige after giving credit for the sum of Rs. 500, paid in 1896. The only defence with which we are concern...
Ramdhani Misir and ors. Vs. Parmeshar Kurmi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.5
1. Kunjan and his nephew, Basawan, mortgaged certain land in 1886 and 1892. Nath mortgages came to be vested in one Nakchhedi Pande. In 1898, Basawan, alone, mortgaged the property to Ram Lagan, the father of the present defendants first party. Ram Lagan brought a suit on his mortgage against his mortgagor, Basawan and the holder of the prior mortgages, Nakcheddi, and obtained a decree nisi in July 1905. That decree required him to redeem the prior mortgages. After redeeming them, Ram Lagan obtained an order absolute for sale and in August 1908, the mortgaged property was sold. In July 1910, Ram Lagan applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, for a mo money-decree against Basawan and against Parmeshwar, Bhusi, Ujajar and Bhaunath, the four sons of Kunjan, one of the mortgagors of 1886 and 1892. Notices were issued on this application. Notice was served personally on Bhusi and as regards two of the others the peon reported that on hearing of the notice, they concealed the...
Ram Parshad Rai and anr. Vs. Nawab Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.222a
1. On April 15th, 1864, one Dargahi made an usufructuary mortgage of property in favour of Bhawani Din and placed him in possession. Four days later, he executed in favour of Bhawani Din a document on which the present suit is based. The material portion of the document is set out in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It is sufficient to say here that it contains a promise by Dargahi to pay Rs. 500 with certain interest thereon and a promise by him that he will pay this amount before he redeems the mortgage. In the closing passage of the document, the executant describes it as a tamasuk. The present suit was instituted in June 1910 by persons in whom the rights of Bhawani Din are now vested. Defendants Nos. 1 to 8 are the representatives of Dargahi and the remaining defendants are subsequent transferees of the property. It seems to us quite clear that the document on which the suit is based is not a mortgage nor can we hold that it effected a charge upon the property. See Sheo ...
Yakub HusaIn Vs. Bharat Indo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.372
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for partition of certain houses. A preliminary decree was passed dismissing a portion of the claim, but declaring the plaintiffs' right to possession by partition of certain specified shares in each of the two houses. This declaration was, however, subject to a condition, vis., that a smaller fractional share in each house, that is to say, a portion of the share declared to belong to the plaintiffs was subject to a charge of Rs. 877 in favour of the defendant, Yakub Husain, and directing that the plaintiffs should pay the same before they could obtain possession. That decree was contested up to Letters Patent Appeal before this Court, and was substantially affirmed. The plaintiffs then presented to the Court of first instance an application to the effect that they had no desire to redeem the fractional shares subject to the charge of Rs. 877 but would be content with actual partition of a smaller share in each house r arrived at by deducting the share Subj...
Ram Piari Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.515
George Knox, J.1. A Deputy Magistrate of Azamgarh, Budh Sen, tried one Durgahi Khan, for an offence under the Indian Penal Code. He convicted him of that offence on September 27th, 1911, and in the course of this trial, he arrived at the conclusion that there was ground for inquiry into an offence under Section 211, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been represented to me by the learned Government Advocate, in the course of the argument today, that Deputy Magistrate, Budh Sen, considered this a case in which a preliminary inquiry should be made and moved the District Magistrate of Azamgarh to have such inquiry held by the Criminal Investigation Department. If Budh Sen had left the matter entirely in the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department, I should have had considerable doubt whether any inquiry held by them would come within the purview of the words of Section 476, 'such Court after making any preliminary inquiry that may be necessary'. But it appears f...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Basdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All604; 17Ind.Cas.89
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought against several persons for the rent of a fixed rate holding. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance, and the plaintiff appealed to the District Judge. While the appeal was pending, one of the defendants respondents died, and the plaintiff appellant failed to apply to the court within the prescribed time to make his heirs respondents in his place. The court then held that the appeal was not maintainable against the remaining respondents, and with reference to a prayer that the court should consider the case under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court held that that Section did not apply to the appeal. The result was that the appeal was dismissed. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, on whose behalf it is contended (1) that the liability of the defendants to the suit was joint and several and not joint only, and therefore the appeal should have been allowed to proceed against the survivin...
Muhammad HusaIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Nur Jahan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.13
Piggott, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff, Musammat Noor Jahan, claimed from the defendants a sum of Rs. 375 with interest by way of damages as arrears of maintenance for three years at toe rate of Rs. 125 a year on the plea that they were bound to pay her the said sum annually under the terms of an agreement. dated April 24th, 1908. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below, and the defendants come here in second appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies. This point is concluded by authority; in Bhagvantrao v. Ganpatrao 16 B. 267; Saminatha Ayyan v. Mangalathammal 20 M. 29; Amritomoye Dasia v. Bhogiruth Chundra 15 C. 164 and in Baldeo Sahai v. Jumna Kunwar 23 A. 495 : A.W.N. (1901) it was held that suits of similar nature to the present fell within the description of 'suits for maintenance' and were not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. A second appeal, therefore, does lie.3. The first point taken in the defendants' memorandum of appeal has no...
Babu Ram Dube Vs. Ramjas Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.396
Banerji, J.1. The question raised in this Court is whether the Court below was right in holding that no appeal lay to it. The facts are these: The respondent applied to the Revenue Court for partition. The appellant raised an objection as to the respondent's title and asserted that by a decision of the Civil Court, passed in 1896, his title had been declared and chat after the passing of that decision, he had been in adverse proprietary possession for more than 12 years and had thus acquired an indefeasible title. The Assistant Collector proceeded to determine the objections put forward by the appellant. There can be no doubt that the appellant's objections raised a question of proprietary title. It is equally clear that those objections raised a question of title which could not have already been determined by a competent Court in the previous litigation, inasmuch as it was asserted that the appellant had, since the date of the decision of the Civil Court, been in adverse proprietary ...
Badri Das Vs. Jiwan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.854
1. On June 9th, 1908, the plaintiffs sold half a village to the defendant, Badri Das, for Rs. 6,900, of which Rs. 1,400 were paid in cash to the plaintiffs and the balance Rs. 5,500 was left in the hands of the. defendant on account of the amount due on a prior mortgage of the whole village held by one Kanhya Lal. On the 18th of June 1908, the defendant deposited Rs. 5,500 in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Properly Act. By this time, Kanhya Lal had died leaving an infant heir. The child's guardian refused to accept the money saying that a larger sum was due on the mortgage and the plaintiffs put in an application stating that the whole of the sum deposited was not due to the mortgagee, but that accounts should be taken and the amount found due paid to the mortgagee and the balance paid to the plaintiffs. The Courts below have found that there was no agreement between the plain-tiffs and the defendant that they would go to the mortgagee and settle accounts with him and the de...
Sespuri Vs. Dwarka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.222
Piggott, J.1. The only question in issue in this case is whether the plaintiff, Sespuri, is the legitimate son of one Sidha. Sidha was a Thakur by caste and he contracted a union with a wdman of the Brahman caste, from which the plaintiff Sespuri is alleged to have been born. Such union is prima facie forbidden by the Hindu Law. It can-not amount to a legal marriage, and its offspring cannot be said to be legitimate issue. In the case of Padam Kumari v. Surai Kumari 18 A. 458 : A.W.N. (1906) 83 : 3 A.L.J. 209 a Bench of this Court held that a marriage between a man of the Brahman caste and a woman, who was a Chhattrior Rajput by caste, is not lawful in these Provinces and the issue of such marriage is not legitimate. The present case is a very much stronger one, because even those ancient writers who have hesitated altogether to condemn a marriage between a man of higher caste and a woman of lower caste, have been clear in their condemnation of such a union as the present, where the po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »