Allahabad Court February 1913 Judgments
Lal Muhammad Vs. Musammat Shakuran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.867
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a gait brought by the plaintiff-appellant for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife and her parents. The suit was resisted on two grounds (1) that the plaintiff had divorced his wife and (2) that there was legal cruelty by reason of which the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Before the institution of this suit the wife, had brought a suit for her dower on the allegation that her husband had divorced her. The two suits were tried together by the Court of first instance. That Court was of opinion that the allegation of divorce was not proved. It found, however, that Shakuran, the wife, had been very badly treated 'by her husband but it made a decree for restitution. At the same time it provided in its decree under Order XXI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the decree should not be enforced by detention of the wife in prison. The plaintiff appealed from the decree in his suit and the de...
Tag this Judgment!Hardwar Rai and anr. Vs. Balram Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.959
Banerji, J.1. This appeal must, in my opinion, fail. The suit was brought by certain reversioners to recover property which originally belonged to two brothers, Bhujawan and Hira. It has been found that they formed a joint family and that Hira survived Bhujawan. So that he was the last surviving owner of the joint family property. Bhujawan had a widow who died some 19 years ago. Hira's widow was Musammat Rajwanti who died in 1910. She made certain gifts of the property in favour of the defendants-appellants. Those defendants also claimed to be the sons of a daughter of Hira but it has been found that they are not so. It is upon the death of Musammat Rajwanti in 1910 that the plaintiffs, who are admittedly the reversioners to the estate of Hira, claimed the property. It is urged that Musammat Parkali, the widow of Bhujawan was in adverse possession as against Musammat Rajwanti for more than 12 years in respect of half the property and that, therefore, the plaintiffs' claim as regards on...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad and anr. Vs. Abdul Karim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All254
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage for Rs. 99 made in December, 1884. The claim was decreed by the first court, but was dismissed by the District Judge on appeal on the ground that the mortgage deed had not been proved as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act.2. The only witness called to prove the execution of the deed was Ghulam Jilani, the man who wrote out the deed. He deposed that the deed was executed in his presence. The question is whether he was an attesting witness within the meaning of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. He signed his name on the deed in the usual way, but he did so for the purpose of showing that it had been written out by him, not for the purpose of showing that he was an attesting witness. In fact there can be no doubt that he wrote his name on the deed before the deed was signed by the executant. The appellants rely upon the decision of Burkitt J. in Radha Kishen v. Fateh Ali Khan (1888) I.L.R., 2O. A11., 532 in which it se...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All207
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 9th of February, 1891. The mortgage was admittedly made by the father of a joint Hindu family. The consideration for the mortgage was a sum of Rs. 5,000 alleged to be due on account at the date of the mortgage, a sum of Rs. 6,500 representing interest calculated in advance, and Rs. 22,000 cash advanced to enable the mortgagor to purchase certain immovable property. The principal amount was made repayable by instalments extending over sixteen years. The court below has given a decree for Rs. 27,926-1-0.2. The question which has been urged before us in the present appeal is that the sum of Rs. 5,000, assuming it ever to have been a debt at all, was at the time of the execution of the mortgage time barred, and that, therefore, it was not permissible for the mortgagor, as the father and manager of the joint Hindu family, to revive a time-barred debt and to create a mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Dei Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All249
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The appellant Musammat Jai Dei applied under Section 6 of Act VII of 1889, the Succession Certificate Act, in respect of four debts due to her deceased husband. The application was opposed by certain reversioners, who asked the court to take security from the widow, as there was every likelihood of her wasting the corpus of the property if it reached her hands. On that the District Judge passed the following order: 'The certificate asked for is granted with the condition that the applicant may not disturb the capital sum and shall draw interest only. This will obviate the necessity for security.' Musammat Jai Dei has come here on appeal, and it is urged that the condition imposed by the court is ultra vires and that so much of the order passed is illegal. The case is similar in all respects to the case of Musammat Shib Dei v. Ajudhia Prasad F.A. f. o., No. 108 of 1910, decided on the 13th of February, 1911. As in that cause, all that the Court could do...
Tag this Judgment!Parsotam Das and ors. Vs. Patesri Partab NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All250
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, and the only question we have to determine is whether the court below was right in dismissing the claim in so far as it sought to bring to sale the village Rasulpur, tappa Kadar. The court below has held that having regard to the provisions of Section 21 of the Registration Act of 1877 the registration of the mortgage deed as regards that village was void and it has accordingly dismissed the claim in respect of that village. The correctness of this decision is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The mortgage comprises a number of villages, among which is the village Rasulpur, and it is thus described in the deed. 'The entire mauza Rasulpur, tappa Padya,... pargana and district Basti... which are mortgaged with possession to other persons'. Mauza Rasulpur is not in tappa Padya, but is in fact in tappa Kadar. This is established by the evidence to which the court below has ref...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. Kundan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.726
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 9th of February 1891. The mortgage was admittedly made by the father of a joint Hindu family. The consideration for the mortgage was a sum of Rs. 5,000, alleged to be due on accounts at the date of the mortgage, a sum of Rs. 6,500 represented interest calculated in advance, and Rs. 22,000 cash advanced to enable the mortgagor to purchase certain immoveable property. The principal amount was made re-payable by instalments extending over 16 years. The Court below has given a decree for Rs. 27,926-1.2. The question which has been urged before us in the present appeal is that the sum of Rs. 5,000, assuming it ever to have been a debt at all, was, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, time-barred, and that, therefore, it was not permissible for the mortgagor as the father and manager of the joint Hindu family to revive a time-barred debt, and to create a mortgage for such time-barred debt on the family prop...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Prasad Pandey Vs. Kashi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.897
1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree which has been dismissed by the Court below. The decree was passed on a mortgage in 1885. Applications for execution were made until the year 1897, when a proclamation was issued for sale of certain property. The 20th of July 1897 was fixed for the sale of the said property. Thereupon, Ram Narain and others, who held a prior usufructuary mortgage of the 2nd of July 1880 in respect of the same property, brought a suit for a declaration that the decree-holder was not entitled to bring that property to sale without redeeming the prior mortgage. In view of the course of rulings of this Court which existed at that time, the claim was decreed on the 26th of November 1897. The decree passed in that suit was to the effect that so long as the prior mortgage existed, the decree-holder was not entitled to bring the property to sale. The effect of the decree was that the property Could not be sold subject to the prior mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Parsotam Das and ors. Vs. Raja Patesri Partap Narayan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.923
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, and the only question we have to determine is whether the Court below was right in dismissing the claim in so far as it sought to bring to sale the village Rasulpur, tappa Kadar. The Court below has held that having regard to the provisions of Section 21 of the Registration Act of 1877, the registration of the mortgage-deed as regards that village was void and it has accordingly dismissed the claim in respect of that village. The correctness of this decision is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The mortgage comprises a number of villages among which is the village Rasulpur and it is thus described in the mortgage-deed: 'the entire Mauzah Rasulpur, tappa Padya Parganah and District Basti which are mortgaged with possession to other persons.' Mautah Rasulpur is not in tappa Padya but is in fact in tappa Kadar. This is established by the evidence to which the Court below has referred; but it is admitted that it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Jadunath Rai and anr. Vs. Gobardhan Sahi and anr. and Nanhu Sahi and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All202
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to realize the amount of a mortgage, dated the 21st of March, 1900, by the sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants pleaded that after the mortgage had been executed the. mortgagors rendered certain services to the mortgagee, and that in consideration of those services a certain part of the principal and all interest up to date and all future interest were relinquished by the mortgagee. To prove this agreement a certain document was tendered in evidence. The document was unstamped and unregistered. The difficulty of stamp has been got over by the payment of duty and penalty, but the question of registration remains.2. The court below held that the document required registration and therefore was inadmissible in evidence. Section 17 of Act No. III of 1877 (which was the Registration Act in force at the time of the execution of the document in question), provides that certain documents must be regis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »