Allahabad Court April 1913 Judgments
Todar Mal and ors. Vs. Phola Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All389
Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree, and the question to be determined is whether the application is time-barred. A preliminary decree for sale was passed on the 1st of September, 1897, and it was made absolute on the 17th of November, 1900. The last application for execution, admittedly within time, was made on the 11th of May, 1906. On the 5th of September, 1908, the decree-holder applied to the court at Bareilly, which had passed the decree, to transfer it for execution to the court at Shahjahanpur. This application was made under Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The certificate asked for was granted, and thereupon an application for execution was made in the court at Shahjahanpur on the 8th of February, 1910. It is this application which the appellants contend is time-barred. The court below has held against the appellants, and in our judgment its decision is right. The present application for execution wo...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Prasad and ors. Vs. Banke Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All387
Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. Banwari Lal, Parsotam Das and Ramrich Pal brought a suit for partition of their shares in certain joint property. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit, and for the purpose of preparing a final decree the court appointed a commissioner and receiver. Among the properties ordered to be partitioned are mortgagee rights in one half of the village Sundhawra. On the 15th of May, 1912, Shanti Prasad, who was one of the defendants, and the extent of whose share, as also the share of his minor brother Ram Kunwar, is one quarter, applied to the court, apparently under Act IV of 1893, praying that the mortgagee rights be sold by auction to the highest bidder among the parties. This application was opposed by Banke Lal and Ratan Lal, On reference by the court to the receiver and on obtaining a report from him, the court made an order directing the sale of the mortgagee rights to the highest bidder among the cosharers. The present appeal has been preferred against th...
Tag this Judgment!NabIn Kali Devi Vs. Khettar Chandra Basu Mallik and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All385
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The premises are situate in the city of Benares. A number of issues were framed in the court below; amongst others, one as to whether the custom prevailed in the particular muhalla where the premises were situate, Another issue was whether the demands were made in accordance with the Muhammadan Law. On the first question, it has not been shown to us that the decision of the court below was wrong. There was undoubtedly evidence of the existence of the custom and in conjunction with that evidence the court was clearly entitled to take into consideration that pre-emption is common in a number of the muhallas into which the city Benares is divided. On the whole, we see no reason to differ from the view of both the courts below on this point.2. With regard to the making of the demands, this is really a question of fact in the present case. It is not alleged that the demands were made in any improper...
Tag this Judgment!Achhaibar Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All380
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.1. Bisheshar Sahu, father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage of certain property On the 9th of October, 1890. Bhawani Din, the mortgagor, judgment-debtor, after the decree, sold his equity of redemption to the plaintiff and left Rs. 770 with him out of the consideration money to pay off the mortgage decree. Bisheshar Sahu died, leaving three sons, namely, Ram Sarup, Beni Madho and Chunni. Ram Sarup was an adult and the two younger brothers were minors. After two infructuous applications to execute the decree, the plaintiff paid off the amount of the mortgage to Ram Sarup, and Ram Sarup applied, under Section 258 of the old Civil Procedure Code, to have the satisfaction of the decree certified by the court, and this was done on the 31st of March, 1897.2. Thirteen years afterwards Beni Madho and Chunni applied to execute the same decree by sale of the property. The plaintiff, who alone had any interest in the property, was not made a pa...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Ahad and ors. Vs. Mahtab Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All378
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.1. The only point in this case is as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is one for foreclosure of a mortgage, dated the 4th of December, 1874. The mortgagee was in possession and received periodically profits in part satisfaction of the interest agreed upon in the deed. The first court held that these payments extended the period of limitation, applying the second paragraph of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. On appeal, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the word 'interest' in Section 20 means the whole of the interest due on a debt and that, therefore, as only part of the interest was paid on any particular date, held that Section 20 had no application, and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. In our opinion 'interest'in that section means the interest or any part of the interest due, and we agree with the first court that the suit is not barred by limitation. The rulings to which we have been referred [Kallu v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Azmat Shah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All374
Ryves, J.1. On the facts found in this case I cannot interfere with the conviction. But I think that the sentence, even as modified by the learned Sessions Judge, is under the circumstances of the case unnecessarily severe. I accordingly maintain the conviction, but reduce the sentence on Azmat Shah to one of six months' rigorous imprisonment and on Abdul Hakim, Najibullah, Asghar Husain, Wahidyar Khan, and Abdulla to one of three months' rigorous imprisonment each.2. Mr. Hamilton has argued that the concluding words of the appellate court's order are ultra vires. The learned Sessions Judge says: 'I am not satisfied that the whole of the katha (catechu) recovered was that taken from Krishnanand and the parties will be left to establish their claim to it in the Civil Court.' It is argued that under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code the only court that could pass orders under that section was the court trying the case, and reliance is placed on In re Devidin Durgaprasad (1897) I...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nanna Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All375
Tudball, J.1. The facts out of which this revision has arisen are as follows. The applicant is the owner of a house in the town of Hathras. There was a balcony attached to this house overhanging a public road. It fell into disrepair and the applicant reconstructed it and made it serviceable. He also had a privy in this house, the upper portion of the screening wall of which fell down. He accordingly rebuilt this wall so as to screen the privy from the public gaze. He acted, in both instances, without any sanction from the Municipal Board. On the 22nd of July, 1911, the Board issued a notice to the applicant, as the heading of the notice shows, under Section 91, Clause (1), and Section 88 of the Municipalities Act and ordered him to remove both the privy and the balcony. He did not comply with the order and was prosecuted and convicted of an offence under Section 147 of the Municipalities Act and has been fined Rs. 20. In the meantime he also brought a civil suit for a declaration that ...
Tag this Judgment!Walidad Khan and ors. Vs. Janak Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All370
Harry Griffin and Ryves, JJ.1. On the 17th of November, 1905, the defendant Janak Singh sold certain zamindari property to the plaintiffs, who were then minors. On a suit by third parties the the plaintiffs were dispossessed. The plaintiffs, having been unable to obtain a refund of the purchase money from the defendant, brought this suit for its recovery and also for the costs incurred in the litigation with the third parties. In defence it was pleaded, inter alia, that the contract was null and void, the plaintiffs having been minors at the date of the execution of the sale deed. The first court decreed the suit in part, namely, for the principal of the sale consideration Rs. 800; Rs. 119 in respect of the costs in the former litigation, and Rs. 260 as interest on the purchase money at 8 annas per cent per mensem. The defendant appealed, eight grounds being taken in the memorandum of appeal. The lower appellate court disposed of the appeal on one ground only. In the opinion of that co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›