Allahabad Court February 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.
Mohan Lal Vs. Jagan Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All243
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The facts are briefly as follows: The parties are step-brothers. A suit for partition was brought by the plaintiffs respondents for partition of the joint family property. The suit ended in a decree, dated the 3rd of March, 1908, based on a compromise. The compromise is dated the 14th of January, 1908, and was filed in the course of the appeal in this Court, on the 22nd of January, 1908, and was remitted to the court below for verification and report. It reached the court below on the 31st of January, 1908. According to the compromise the landed property was divided in a certain manner, likewise the house property. With these we are not concerned in this appeal. The third class of property consisted of debts on bonds and on accounts entered in certain account-books. Of this class about ten debts secured by bonds were allotted to the plaintiffs. The remaining debts, including all those due on accou...
Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Makhdum Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.744
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage made by one Najaf Khan in favour of an ancestor of the plaintiffs in May 1868. The first set of defendants are the heirs of Najaf Khan. The second set are purchasers, after the mortgage, of various portions of the mortgaged property. The mortgage purports to have been made in consideration of a sum of Rs. 92 due on a prior mortgage of 1867 and two sums said to have been paid just before and just after the execution of the deed. The Courts below have held that the payment of these two sums has not been proved but that the mortgage holds good for the sum of Rs. 92, and interest thereon.2. The evidence that the last mentioned sum was due upon a prior mortgage consists of a recital in the deed in suit and the production by the heirs of the mortgagor of the earlier deed which does not bear any endorsement showing that it has been paid off.3. In second appeal, it is contended that the recital in the deed is not admissible in evidence against the defendants....
Rajmangal Sahu and anr. Vs. F. Mackinon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.875
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed under the following circumstances: The plaintiff-respondent is the lessee of the zemindar and the defendants-appellants are persons who were agricultural tenants in this village. The plot in dispute is plot No. 450/3. Some years ago, the plaintiff sued the present appellants for arrears of rent on account of his holding in the Revenue Court. Plot No. 450/3 is entered in the papers as one of the plots held by the appellants. The suit for rent was decreed. The plaintiff then brought a suit in the Revenue Court for ejectment of the appellants and he entered plot No. 450/3 as one of those from which he sought to eject. The defendants pleaded that they did not hold No. 450/3 as agricultural tenants. The Court of first instance held against them and decreed the ejectment. The defendants appealed and on appeal their plea succeeded and it was held that they did not hold this plot as agricultural tenants and, therefore, the Revenue Court had n...
Bihari Lal Vs. Daud HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All240
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. Balkishan and Mul Chand were brothers, separate in estate. Mul Chand died leaving a son Bhagirath. In execution of a decree obtained by Bhagirath a share in a village called Jaswan was put up for sale and purchased by, or at all events in the name of, Balkishan. The last named was succeeded by his son, Ganesh, who died in 1888, leaving a widow Musammat Gango. Bhagirath put forward a claim to the share in Jaswan. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of three persons, but before an award could be made the parties agreed that the share in Jaswan should go to Bhagirath and that a share in a village called Karauri, standing in the names of Ganesh and Bhagirath, should go to Musammat Gango, and at the same time other properties were allotted to one party or the other. An award was made in terms of this agreement. In 1904, Gango gave the share in Karauri to her daughter's son, the present plaintiff. She died in 1908. In 1892 Bhagirath sold the share in ...
Behari Lal Vs. Daud HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.721
1. Balkishen and Mulchand were brothers separate in estate. Mulchand died leaving a son Bhagirath. In execution of a decree obtained by Bhagirath, a share in a village called Jaswan was put up for sale and purchased by, or at all events in the name of Balkishen. The last named was succeeded by his son Ganesh, who died in 1888, leaving a widow, Musammat Gango. Bhagirath put forward a claim to the share in Jaswan. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of three persons but before an award could be made, the parties agreed that the share in Jaswan should go to Bhagirath and that a share in a village called Karauri standing in the names of Ganesh and Bhagirath should go to Musammat Gango and at the same time other properties were allotted to one party or the other. An award was made in terms of this agreement. In 1904, Gango gave the share in Karauri to her daughter's son, the present plaintiff. She died in 1903. In 1892, Bhagirath sold the share in Jaswan to a Musammat Waliunnissa, f...
Shida Ali Vs. Phullo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All185
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit to recover eleven years' arrears of malikana. The plaintiff asked for a decree against the property, on which, he says, the malikana allowance was chargeable. The court below has given him a decree for Rs. 57-3-4 only. In appeal to this Court it is pointed out, on behalf of the appellant, that the court below, in making its calculation, has made an obvious mistake and that the sum due to the plaintiff appellant on the basis adopted by the court below should be Rs. 262-12-5, to which should be added Rs. 18-0-0 on account of bhent. The defendants respondents have filed objections, and it is contended on their behalf that the suit is barred by time. Reliance is placed on Kallar Roy v. Ganga Pershad Singh (1905) I.L.R., 33 Calc., 998. In that case the learned Judges refused to apply the provisions of Article 132 of the Limitation Act, the reason being that in the particular case before them the plaintiff ha...
Jwala Prasad and ors. Vs. Kunwar Sen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All190
George Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The plaintiffs to the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen describe themselves as mortgagees from certain persons whom they have arrayed as defendants 1 to 3. It appears that the mahal in which the land in dispute is situate was sold for arrears of revenue which were due from the mahal. On the 24th of December, 1892, the mahal was sold at a revenue sale and purchased by one Jagan Bihari Lal. Jagan Bihari Lal in turn sold all the rights he had purchased to one Tara Chand and defendants 4 to 6 are the representatives in interest of Tara Chand. The mortgagees are now seeking to enforce their rights and ask that the mortgage money may be awarded to them by sale of the mortgaged-property. The suit was defended only by defendants 4 to 6. The contention is that as the whole of the mahal, including the area in dispute, was sold to Jagan Bihari Lal, even if defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs had any right as co-sharers, that right became extinc...
Udai Bhan Pargas Vs. Anant Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All187
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground of res judicata. It is necessary shortly to state the facts in order that it may be understood how the question arises. Two suits were instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur apparently on the same day. The plaintiff in both the suits was mahant Udai Bhan Pargas alias Angan Das. In the present suit Anant Das was the only defendant. In the other suit the defendants were (1) Sundar Das and (2) Anant Das, the appellant in this appeal. In both suits the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the mahant of a certain math. In the suit in which both Sundar Das and Anant Das were defendants the claim was as follows:The plaintiff's title and the defendants' want of title may be established and it may be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the papers and the box aforesaid. The box and the papers detailed below may be awarded to th...
Kunj Bihari Lal Vs. Badri Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All178
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the respondent's application for a decree absolute for the sale of mortgaged property was made within time. The decree nisi, which was passed in 1899 upon a compromise between the parties, provided that Rs. 1,374-0-0 with interest at a certain rate should be paid by instalments of Rs. 100 a year along with the interest then due. Payments were to be made by the end of Jeth in each year beginning with Jeth 1957 Fasli (June 1900), and it was provided that if default were made for three years in succession in the payments and interest, the decree-holder would be at liberty to recover at once the whole amount payable under the decree, i.e., to apply for an order absolute for sale of the property and execute the same.2. No payment was made in 1900 or in 1901, but in June 1902, just before the end of Jeth 1959 Fasli, the appellant paid up all that was due on account of the first three years. He made no payment in 190...
Badri Narayan Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.731
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the respondent's application for a decree absolute for the sale of mortgaged property was made within time. The decree nisi which was passed in 1899 upon a compromise between the parties provided that Us. 1,374 with interest at a certain rate should be paid by instalments of Rs. 100 a year along with the interest then due. Payments were to be made by the end of Jeth in each year beginning with Jeth 1957 Fasli (June 1900) and it was provided that if default were made for three years in succession in the payment of the instalments and interest, the decree-holder would be at liberty to recover at once the whole amount payable under the decree, i.e., apply for an order absolute for sale of the property and execute the same.2. No payment was made in 1900 or in 1901 but in June 1902 just before the end of Jeth 1959 Fasli, the appellant paid up all that was due on account of the first three years. He made no payment in 1903 but in June 1904 he pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »