Allahabad Court February 1913 Judgments
Dhanpal Singh Vs. Budh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All271
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The plaintiff the suit sued to recover principal and interest on an unregistered mortgage deed, dated the 15th of December, 1887, to secure an advance of Rs. 95. The mortgage was executed by Budh Singh, defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor in title. Defendant No. 2 Sah Tejpal held a registered mortgage, also for Rs. 95, executed on the 5th of December, 1892, hypothecating the same property. Tejpal brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree, in execution of which he purchased the property himself. The present suit was resisted by Tejpal on the ground that he was purchaser in execution of a decree obtained on a document which by reason of registration took effect against the unregistered document held by the plaintiff. The court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree conditional on his paying half the amount due to Tejpal defendant No. 2, under the mortgage deed in the latter's favour. Tejpal defendant No 2 appealed to...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunka Prasad Vs. Nathu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All263
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of defendant sued for partition. His suit was dismissed by both the courts below on the finding that the alleged adoption was invalid. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The parties are ahirs. The plaintiff at the time of the alleged adoption was a married man. It is admitted that among the twice-born classes a married man cannot be adopted. The court below says that ahirs belong to the twice-born classes. This assertion is challenged in appeal. However that may be, there is authority for holding that the adoption of a married man is not valid even amongst Sudras. In the case of Pichuvayyan v. Subbayyan (1889) I.L.R. 13 Mad., 128 it was said that an adoption in order to be valid even among Sudras must take place before the marriage of the adopted son. Reference is made to the Dattaka Chandrika. The same rule is to be found in the text-books on the subject. We see no reason to differ from the finding o...
Tag this Judgment!Gajdhar Sahai Vs. Indarjit and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All270
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage of the 26th of January, 1850. The question to be decided is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee was to take possession and appropriate the rents and profits in lieu of interest. It has been found by the court below that in pursuance of this clause in the mortgage deed the mortgagee was in possession till the year 1889, when he was dispossessed. It is argued that the claim had become time-barred before Act XV of 1877 came into operation, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908. Section 21 of Act IX of 1871 gave a fresh start for the computation of limitation from the date of payment of interest as such. The realization of rents and profits in lieu of interest was equivalent to the receipt of interest as such under the terms of the mortgage and, therefore, under Section 21 of Act IX of 18...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Vs. Kallo Mistri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: AIR1914All49(2); 18Ind.Cas.916
Rafique, J.1. The defendant appellant is the tenant of a flat in a house in the city of Allahabad. The plaintiff-respondent, Shaikh Kallu, instituted a suit against him for ejectment and for recovery of rent for four months and a half from the 1st of March to the 15th of July 1909 on the allegation that the defendant-appellant had been served with a notice to vacate the flat and to pay the rent due from him and that he had failed to vacate the flat or pay the rent. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit on various grounds. He stated in his defence that he had taken the flat on hire from one Ghulam Mustafa, who had died leaving two sons, two daughters and a widow and that the plaintiff-respondent had no right to sue inasmuch as no valid deed of sale had been executed in his favour by Ghulam Mustafa or all the heirs of Ghulam Mustafa. The defendant-appellant also contested the validity of the notice. The first Court found that the house in a part of which the defendant-appellant lived...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal and ors. Vs. Diwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.922
1. Two plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover principal and interest on a balance of account due to the plaintiffs' firm. It was pleaded in defence that there were two other persons who were also partners in the plaintiffs' firm and who had not joined in the suit and that the suit should, therefore, be dismissed. This plea was upheld by the Court of first instance, which dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower Appellate Court held that the defect in the suit, if any, was cured by the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. That Court then proceeded to give the plaintiffs a decree for the sum of Rs. 648 odd. It appears that while the appeal was pending in the Court below and before the decision of the appeal the two plaintiffs, Diwan Singh and Janki Saran, had been adjudged insolvents. In appeal to this Court, it is contended that the Court below was wrong in holding that the suit was maintainable by the two plaintiffs without the partners...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranji Lal Vs. Kasturi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All265
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights The courts below have found that the appellant Musammat Kasturi was given in marriage to the respondent by her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle against the wishes of the appellants, Mangal, Balmakund and Joti, who are paternal uncle and paternal cousins of the girl, and who hoped to make a profit out of marrying her to a rich but one-eyed man named Tulshi. It has been found also that the marriage was not brought about either by force or by fraud.2. The question for decision is whether the marriage is valid. The authorities are conflicting. According to Yajnavalkya. (1-63-64) the father, paternal grandfather, brother, a Sakulya or member the same family, and the mother, in default of the first among these the next in order, if sound in mind, is to give a damsel in marriage. Vishnu says (XXIV-38-39): 'The father, the paternal grandfather, the brother, the kinsm...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Kasturi and ors. Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.927
1. This is an appeal in a suit brought by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. The Courts below have found that the appellant, Musammat Kasturi, was given in marriage to the respondent by her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle against the wishes of the appellants, Mangal, Bal Makund and Joti, who are the paternal uncle and paternal cousins of the girl and who hoped to make a profit out of marrying her to a rich but one-eyed man, named Tulshi. It has been found also that the marriage was not brought about either by force or by fraud.2. The question for decision is whether the marriage is valid.. The authorities are conflicting. According to Yajnavalkya (I-63-64), the father, paternal grandfather, brother, a sakulya or member of the same family, and the mother, in default of the first among these, the next in order if sound in mind, is to give a damsel in marriage. Vishnu says (XXIV-38-39): 'The father, the paternal grandfather, the brother, the kinsman, the maternal g...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunka Prasad Vs. Nathu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.960
1. The plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of the defendant sued for partition. His suit was dismissed by both, the Courts below on the finding that the alleged adoption was invalid The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The parties are Ahirs. The plaintiff at the time of the alleged adoption was a married man. It is admitted that among the twice-born classes, a married man cannot be adopted. The Court below says that Ahirs belong to the twice-born class. This assertion is challenged in appeal. However that may be, there is authority for holding that the adoption of a married man is not valid even amongst Sudras. In the case of Pichuvayyan v. Subbayyan 13 M. 128 it was said that an adoption, in order to be valid even amongst Sudras, must take place before the marriage of the adopted son. Reference is made to the Dattaka Chandrika. The same rule is to be found in the text books on the subject. We see no reason to differ from the finding of the Court below on this point. As to t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulabu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All260
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur acquitting one Gulabu of a charge of having murdered his wife Musammat Khushalia. It appears the Tahsildar of Chakrata, who has the powers of a magistrate of the third class, and who has been invested by the Local Government with power to take cognizance of offences upon complaint or upon police reports, received information in the shape of a complaint that the woman had been murdered by her husband. He sent for a number of persons and had their statements recorded in his presence by a wasil-baqi navis. He also interrogated Gulabu. The case was subsequently taken up by the Cantonment Magistrate and Gulabu was committed for trial. At the trial the Tahsildar was asked by the public prosecutor to repeat a confession said to have been made to him by Gulabu. The Sessions Judge declined to allow this to be done. On behalf of the Crown it ...
Tag this Judgment!Jairaj Mal Vs. Radha Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All257
Harry Griffin and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a reference made to this Court under the Kumaun Rules. Jairaj Mal, in execution of a decree against one Muhammad Mushtaq, applied for sale of certain property. In the course of the execution proceedings one Radha Kishan, on the 19th of September, 1904, put in an application to the effect that a mortgage of the 14th of January. 1895, be notified at the time of the sale of the property. On the same date the court executing the decree passed the order: 'Let the mortgage be notified.' We have no information as to whether any inquiry took place in that court as to the genuineness of the mortgage set up by Radha Kishan. The property was sold and was purchased by Jairaj Mal. In the year 1910, Radha Kishan sued to recover principal and interest on this document of the 14th of January, 1895. The defendant No. 2, Jairaj Mal; pleaded that the mortgage sued on was altogether a fictitious document. His defence was upheld by the court of first instance...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »