Allahabad Court November 1913 Judgments
Bans Gopal and ors. Vs. Sheo Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1913
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.95
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage said to have been made on the 25th of February 1866. The principal sum alleged to have been secured wag Rs. 3,000. The interest claimed is Rs. 16,000: in all Rs. 19,000. The suit was instituted in August 1910, a few days before the expiration of the special period of grace allowed by Section 31 of the Limitation Act, IX of 1908. This provision was passed in consequence of the injustice supposed to be likely to occur by reason of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai 30 M. 426 : 17 M L.J.444 : 4 A.L.J. 625 : 9 Bom. L.R. 1104 : 6 C.L.J. 379 : 11 C.W.N. 1005 : 34 I.A. 187 (P.C.); 2 M.L.T. 333 : 17 M.L.J. 444. There can be very little doubt that this enactment led to the institution of many doubtful mortgage suits. It is not alleged that from the date of the mortgage to the institution of the suit any payment had ever been made upon foot of principal or inte...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Das and ors. Vs. Umrao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All51
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and to the pleadings, we cannot say that it was wrong to grant to the plaintiff a decree for possession of the property in suit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. W. C. Keymer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All53
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. Mrs. Williams lodged a complaint against W. C. Keymer, charging him with several offences in connection with the purchase of a phaeton and a motor car. The case was tried at length by a magistrate of the first class, who, on the 17th of March, 1913, passed an order of discharge on all the (1) Weekly Notes, 1895, p. 86. charges. Subsequently Mrs. Williams complained to the police with reference to an item of Rs. 182, which she had paid to Keymer in connection with the purchase of a motor car and which she charged him with criminally misappropriating. The case was re-instated in the court of the same magistrate who had already passed the order of discharge as stated above. In this second case he has taken some evidence on behalf of the prosecution and framed a charge. This court was then moved in revision on the ground that it was not open to the Magistrate having once discharged the accused, to again inquire into the same charge on a second compla...
Tag this Judgment!Jinsi AhirIn Vs. Ram Charitra Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All48
Ryyes and Peggott, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the following facts: one Chikhuri Ahir was the occupancy tenant of a certain holding in a village in the Ballia district. On his death Musammat Jinsi applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of names in her favour, that is to say, she asked to be recorded as the occupancy tenant of the said holding in succession to Chikhuri, whom she described as her late husband. The proprietors of the village, the appellants now before us, replied that Musammat Jinsi was a concubine and not the lawful wife of Chikhuri Ahir; and an order wan passed on the 22nd of January, 1912, refusing mutation of names in favour of Musammat Jinsi. On the 18th of June, 1912, the said Musammat filed a suit in the court of the Munsif of Muhammadabad. She recited the facts already set forth, stated that she had been lawfully married to Chikhuri Ahir and that she was up to the date of the institution of the suit still in possession and occupation by right of inheritance...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Jas Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All46
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We are unable to hold that the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court was wrong. We accordingly dismiss the appeal, but without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Achhaibar Singh and ors. Vs. Narsingh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All36
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We think that the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court was correct and we dismiss the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Fatmatul Kubra Vs. Achchi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All339
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to state them for deciding this appeal, are as follows: A decree-holder in execution of her decree attached a grove or garden in mauza Udaipur in the Bareilly district in which stands a house. The area of the grove is some ten bighaa pacca. The court sold the property through the agency of the Court Amin under Clause (3) of Rule 8 of chapter IV of the General Rules for the Civil Courts. Among other objections, one objection taken is, that the land in question is ancestral land and could only be sold by the Collector after transfer of the execution of the decree to his court, under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that, therefore, the proceeding of the court below is entirety -without jurisdiction. On the issue remitted to the court below, that court held that the laud in question is ancestral land, but it has expressed its opinion that in spite of that it is a grove or garden such as is co...
Tag this Judgment!Annu Lal and ors. Vs. Rang Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All21
Ryves and Piqqott JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The facts are as follows:2. On the 21st of February, 1898, Megh Nath as manager of a joint Hindu family executed a mortgage of three biswas odd in mauza Bhojpur, in favour of Mihin Lal and Duli Ram, who advanced Rs. 600 each on the security of the said property. Both mortgagees are dead. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the surviving members of the joint family of which Mihin Lal was the head. Duli Ram died leaving surviving him, an adopted son, Gulab. Gulab died, leaving a widow, Musammat Bichitra Kunwar, as sole heir. She applied for and obtained a succession certificate under Act VII of 1889, enabling her to realize cue amount due to Gulab under the mortgage. This debt was the only one specified in the certificate, and it is to be noted that Musammaf Bichitra Kunwar alone was entitled to it. She, however, assigned her mortgagee rights to three persons and, at the same time gave them the certificate she had receive...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Kishan and ors. Vs. Dan Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All19
Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District judge of Azamgarh, who, in the course of a suit for partition pending before him, has seen fit to direct that until the determination of the suit the plaintiffs shall have the control and management of a portion of the property in suit, and the defendants of another portion. The order is attacked before us on the ground that it is ultra vires and that it should not have been passed upon an application for a temporary injunction made by the defendants, which was pending before the District Judge when he passed the order under appeal. We think that, although the District Judge did not atop to consider precisely under what portion of the Code of Civil Procedure he was acting, he has in effect appointed the plaintiffs to hold possession as receivers of a portion of the property in suit and the defendants to do the same in respect of another portion. The order itself seems to us not ultra vires, but one covered by t...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prasad and anr. Vs. Kapildeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All17
Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal in a mortgage suit by two defendants, who are the minor sons of the original mortgagor. The last paragraph of the memorandum of appeal to this Court is apparently intended to attack the validity of the deed of transfer under which the plaintiffs are claiming, but it has not been pressed in argument and seems to hare no force. The one substantial question in issue is whether under the particular circumstances of this case the appellants are bound by the mortgage executed by their father Kali Dat Pande. The latter had bid for certain immovable property at an auction sale, and had paid into court the preliminary deposit required by law. In order to complete the transaction he executed a mortgage-deed, hypothecating both the property he proposed to acquire at the auction-sale and other family property in his hands. That is to say, Kali Dat Pande had entered into an engagement by which he bound himself under penalty to deposit in court a cert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »