Allahabad Court January 1913 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.
Kali Charan Vs. Durga Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All168
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims damages for breach of covenants for title contained in a sale deed, dated the 12th of October, 1889. The court below has given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 2,900, being considerably less than the amount claimed. At the time of the alleged sale the property mentioned in the plaint, together with other property was in the hands of the' Court of Wards, and the sale deed was executed by the Court of Wards. It has not been contended, and in our opinion could not be contended, that the persons entitled to the property sold were not liable upon foot of the covenants given by the Court of Wards, assuming that there was a breach. The sale deed contained the ordinary covenants for title, including a covenant that the vendors took upon themselves 'the responsibility that the property should be. free from all debts, claims and liabilities'.2. In the present suit we are concerned with a villa...
Babu Parshad Vs. Muda Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.331
1. There are six connected appeals before us Nos. 1329 to 1334. The facts which have given rise to these appeals are as follows: In 1909, one Badbu was sent up by the Police at Ghaziabad on a charge under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. Muda Mal and others, the respondents in the six appeals before us, gave evidence for the Police against Budhu. Muda Mal said in his evidence that Budhu committed theft and lived with Babu Parshad plaintiff-appellant and that Babu Parshad was a badmash himself. Babu Parshad instituted six different suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for recovery of damages on the allegation that in statements made by Muda Mal and others were defamatory. The suits were resisted on the ground among others that the statement of a witness in the witness box was privileged and no civil suit for damages could lie in a Civil Court on the basis of the statement made by the witness, even if it be considered defamatory. The learned Subordinate Judge, witho...
Musammat Durga Kuar and ors. Vs. Kali Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.521
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims damages for breach of covenants for title contained in a sale-deed, dated the 12th of October 1889. The Court below has given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 2,900, being considerably less than the amount claimed. At the time of the alleged sale, the property mentioned in the plaint together with other property was in the hands of the Court of Wards, and the sale-deed was executed by the Court of Wards. It has not been contended, and, in our opinion, could not be contended, that the persons entitled to the property sold were not liable upon foot of the covenants given by the Court of Wards assuming that there was a breach. The sale-deed contained the ordinary covenants for title including a covenant that the vendors took upon themselves 'the responsibility that the property should be free from all debts, claims and liabilities.'2. In the present suit, we are concerned with a village called Mirpur Harraipur, which was one ...
Tajammul HusaIn Khan Vs. Muhammad HusaIn Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.158
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The facts are simple. A suit for sale was brought on the basis of a mortgage. The suit was decreed. One of the mortgagors paid off the amount of the decree. He then brought a suit for contribution against his co-mortgagors in respect of the excess amount paid by him and future interest. He sought to enforce his lien against the defendant's share in the property and obtained a decree for sale. In execution of such decree the property was put to sale, but the debt remained unsatisfied. The plaintiff accordingly applied to the Court under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the balance was legally recoverable from the defendant otherwise than out of the property sold. The defendant contested the matter and finally the Court granted the decree mentioned iii Order XXXIV, Rule 6. The defendant appealed to the District Judge from that decree, affixing an 8-annas stamp as Court-fee. His appeal was dismi...
Jai Singh Prashad Vs. Suraja Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.517
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage, dated the 19 th of July 1863. The money secured by it became payable on the 19th of June 1864. The present suit was instituted on the 6th of August 1910. The Court below has dismissed the suit as being barred by time. In our opinion, this view was correct. Under the Limitation Act of 1871, which, governed the present mortgage, a suit could only be brought within 12 years of the time when the money became due, that is to say, within 12 years from the 19th of June 1864. That Act contained no provision similar to Article 147 of Act XV of 1887. It is, therefore, quite clear that before the passing of the last mentioned Act, the claim under the bond in suit was barred by limitation. It is manifest from the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1877, that no right which had become barred under the Act of 1871, was thereby revived. No doubt for sometime, this High Court considered that a suit might be instituted in respect of mortgages which ...
Jai Singh Prasad Vs. Surja Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All167
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage, dated the 19th of July, 1863. The money secured by it became payable on the 19th of June, 1864. The present suit was instituted on the 6th of August, 1910. The court below has dismissed the suit as being barred by time. In our opinion this view was correct. Under the Limitation Act of 1871, which governed the present mortgage, a suit could only be brought within twelve years of the time the money became due, that is to say, within twelve years from the 19th of June, 1864. That Act contained no provision similar to Article 147 of Act XV of 1877. It is; therefore, quite clear that before the passing of the last mentioned Act the claim under the bond in suit was barred by limitation. It is manifest from the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1877 that no right which had become barred under the Act of 1871, was thereby revived. No doubt for some time this High Court considered that a suit might be...
Collector of Mirzapur Vs. Bhagwan Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All164
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on foot of an alleged mortgage. The document is dated the 11th of July, 1900. It purports to have been executed by a number of persons who are stated to have been the adult members of a joint Hindu family. The present suit is brought against all the members of the family. The court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the present appeal.2. The appellant has to admit that owing to the fact that the document was attested by one witness only, the deed cannot operate as a mortgage, having regard to the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires that a mortgage must be attested by at least two witnesses. It is, however, contended that the document, assuming it to have been executed by the persons who purported to do so, amounts to a charge under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and ought to be given effect to as such. It was further contended that...
Shankar Lal Vs. Gulab Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All163
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The appellant in this case was the defendant in a suit, in the court below, which was decreed ex parte against him. He applied under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the ex parte decree set aside on the ground that summons had not been served on him and therefore he was unable to appear and defend the suit. The suit was against the appellant and his minor brother Har Bilas as owners of the firm Gulab Chand Har Bilas. Har Bilas was a minor, and when the plaint was filed there was an application by the plaintiff asking the court to appoint Gulab Chand as guardian of the minor. Notice of this application was issued to Gulab Chand. On the 27th of July, 1911, he filed a vakalatnama and objected to his appointment as guardian of the minor. His objection was allowed, and finally on the 1st of September, one Musammat Champa was appointed guardian. On the same day the suit was registered and summons was ordered to issue. Summons was iss...
The Collector of Mirzapur Court of Wards Estate of B. Beni Madho Das V ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.311
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on foot of an alleged mortgage. The document is dated the 11th of July 1900. It purports to have been executed by a number of persons who are stated to have been the adult members of a joint Hindu family. The present suit is brought against all the members of the family. The Court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit hence the present appeal.2. The appellant has to admit that owing to the fact that the document was attested by one witness only, the deed cannot operate as a mortgage, having regard to the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires that a mortgage must be attested by at least two witnesses. It is, however, contended that the document, assuming it to have been executed by the persons who purported to do so, amounts to a charge under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, and ought to be given effect to as such. It was farther contended that in any event the plaintiff ought to have a personal d...
Ghulam and ors. Vs. Himayat Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.326
1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are brief. A suit for redemption of property, which had been usufructuarily mortgaged, was brought in the year 1889. A decree was passed ordering the mortgagor to pay in the amount due within a fixed period. The decree went on further to order that if the money was not paid, the property would be sold. Some months after the date fixed by the decree, the mortgagor applied to the Court to be put in possession of the property and tendered the amount due. The Court rejected the application as the tender had not been made within the time limited by the decree. After this, no step was taken by either party. The mortgagee did not come to Court and ask for a final order for sale of the property under Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, which then applied. The present suit for redemption was brought by the mortgagor. It was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but on appeal the District Judge remanded the suit for decision on the mer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »