Allahabad Court May 1913 Judgments
Karna Vs. Shiva Prakash and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All464
Banerji and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Dharam Jit, an occupancy tenant, made a usufructuary mortgage of his holding to the plaintiff, Karna, on the 16th of April, 1901. Dharam Jit subsequently surrendered his holding to the zamindar, Jotshi Shiva Prakash, in June or July, 1910, Shiva Prakash brought a suit in the Revenue court for the ejectment of Karna and obtained a decree for ejectment on the 29th of November, 1910. Meanwhile on the 12th of September, 1910, Karna brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration that the surrender of his holding by Dharam Jit was not binding on him, the plaintiff.2. The court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree, and this decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. In our judgment, the decisions of both the courts below are incorrect. The Revenue Court having made a decree for ejectment, and this decree having been carried into effect and the plaintiff having been ejected, the present suit is, in our opinion, n...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Vs. Amolak Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All455
Tudball and Mahammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit on an instalment bond, dated the 7th of July, 1904, for a sum of Rs. 680 as consideration, Rs. 600 being the actual amount of the loan and Rs. 80 being the interest thereon. The whole was repayable in 4 1/2 years in equal instalments of Rs. 75, payable every six months. There was a condition in the bond that if any instalment remained unpaid on the due date, then the creditor would be entitled to recover the whole sum at once with interest or that he might sue for each instalment as it fell due and remained unpaid. The first two instalments were paid on the due dates. The third instalment was due on the 7th of January, 1906. Neither this nor any of the subsequent instalments were paid. On the 17th of August, 1912, i.e., six year and seven months after the 7th of January, 1906, the plaintiff brought the present suit. An examination of his plaint would show that he sued to recover the full amount whic...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Majid Khan Vs. Ahmad Said Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All459
Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad for a declaration that he was entitled to the office of mutawalli of the trust property in suit, under the will of the founder of the waqf as against defendant No. 1, and for possession of the waqf property by the ejectment of defendant No. 1. The last mutawalli, Nawab Abdul Karim Khan, died on the 31st of August, 1908, On the death of Nawab Abdul Karim Khan, defendant No. 1 applied in the Revenue Court for the entry of his name in respect of the endowed villages. The present plaintiff and others entered objections, but the Revenue Court decided in favour of defendant No. 1, and an appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Commissioner. A dispute had arisen as to who was entitled to the office of mutawalli, and the contending parties referred the matter to arbitrators who made an award in favour of Nawab Muhammad Ibrahim Khan. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan applied to fil...
Tag this Judgment!Khunni Lal Vs. Raghunandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All450
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a second appeal arising out of an election petition. The election petition was presented under Rule 42(1) made by the Local Government under Section 187(1), Clause (h), of the Municipalities Act. It was filed in the court of the officiating Subordinate Judge of Bareilly and it was dismissed. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge, who, relying upon the ruling in Sundar Lal v. Muhammad Faiq (1912) 16 Oudh Cases, 36, held that no appeal lay to him, as the decision of the first court was an order and not a decree, and there was nothing in law which gave the petitioner a right of appeal against the order of the first court. The petitioner has come up in second appeal, and a plea is urged that the decision of the first court is a decree within the definition thereof in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore an appeal would lie therefrom. The decision of the question really depends upon the answer to another question--Was or wa...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Eva Mountstephens Vs. Mr. Hunter Garnett Orme
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All448
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed as a first appeal from order. It is objected that it is really a first appeal from decree, and that the petition of appeal does not bear the full court fee stamp necessary under the law. The appeal is one from an order of the District Judge refusing to grant letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed to the estate of the late Miss Francis Mary Garnett Orme. The estate is roughly valued at Rs. 17,000. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that under Section 203 of the Indian Succession Act the decision of the court below is termed an order and that it has been the regular practice of this Court to treat such appeals as first appeals from orders. The point is really covered by decisions. Section 261 of the Succession Act says as follows: 'In any case before the District Judge in which there is contention, the proceedings shall take, as nearly as may be, the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dasi Vs. Ram Kubur Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All428
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.1. Karya Pande and Musammat Aureha Parain, his sister-in-law, executed an usufructuary mortgage of the zamindari share entered in their names, on the 13th of May, 1905, in favour of the plaintiff, for Rs. 1,799. It was agreed that the mortgagee should take the usufruct in lieu of interest and that the mortgage should be redeemed on payment of the mortgage money after a period of four years in any Baisakh. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the further covenants in the bond. In 1907, the mortgagors brought a suit against the mortgagee to cancel this mortgage on the ground that it was merely a paper transaction and no consideration passed. Karya Pande expressly brought this suit in his capacity of manager of a joint Hindu family. It is unnecessary to consider whether such a suit could have been maintained. The parties, however, arrived at a compromise the terms of which ware that the amount then due on the mortgage, which was about Rs. 2,500, should he reduced to Rs. l,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Singh Vs. Bholi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All432
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are a little peculiar. It appears that the defendant obtained three mortgage decrees on foot of three separate mortgages against the property which the plaintiff now seeks to recover. There were three separate sales. The defendant himself purchased at two of the sales. He bid at the third sale, but he was out-bid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was accordingly declared the auction-purchaser. The sale to the defendant was on the 21st of February, 1898; that to the plaintiff was on the 21st of April, 1898. The defendant obtained either formal or actual possession on the 7th of November, 1898. The sale to the plaintiff was confirmed on the 30th of May, 1899. The present suit was not instituted until the 1st of June, 1910. In any view of the case, the plaintiff slept on his rights for nearly twelve years. The only question which had to be decided was one of limitation. It has been urged with great forc...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Das and ors. Vs. Megh Raj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All437
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Lyle, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon foot of a mortgage, dated the 24th of January, 1892. The court below has made a decree in the plaintiff's favour, but certain persons have preferred an appeal. They are the purchasers of a portion of the property which the court below has ordered to be sold. The present suit was instituted on the 11th of July, 1910, but the appellants were not made parties to that suit until the 14th of July, 1911. It will thus appear that the suit was barred against them unless something had happened which gave a fresh period of limitation. The allegation of the plaintiff was that there had been an acknowledgment by a predecessor in title of the appellants on the 2nd of June, 1902. The statement which is relied upon as an acknowledgment was made by one Ram Dayal in a suit brought against him and others for possession by an outsider. Being a party to the suit he was called and questioned by the Judge, and the statement he mad...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Gopal Mukerji Vs. Lachman Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All538
Tudball, and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. These four appeals are all connected and are governed by this judgment. The facts are very briefly as follows: A company was started in Meerut in 1904, which was called the Ganga General Mills Company, Limited. Its object apparently was to carry on business of any and every description that can be done under the sun. Apparently in 1906 this company considered the advisability of starting a branch mill at Fyzabad or its suburbs. It accordingly issued a prospectus and invited the public to subscribe the necessary capital. The present appellant put in an application in the ordinary form in which the following condition was entered: 'These shares are subscribed only on condition that any mill is started in the suburbs of Fyzabad,' The application was entertained by the Directors and shares were allotted, but no mill was started at Fyzabad. Subsequently on the 27th of September, 1909, a resolution was passed by the company that 'as there was no prospect of...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshi Lal Vs. Sanwal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1913
Reported in: (1912)ILR35All441
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover Rs. 920, the principal and interest due on a mortgage executed by Umrao Singh on the 12th of July, 1880, in favour of the plaintiff's father, by sale of the mortgaged property.2. It was stated in the plaint that Umrao Singh, the mortgagor, died leaving two sons, Mangal Singh and Angad Singh. The plaint recites: 'Mangal Singh has not been heard of for a long time, that is, for about twenty-five years, and Angad Singh died childless. In the public khewat the names of Mangal Singh, who has not been heard of, and of Sanwal Singh, defendant, stand recorded in the column of the mortgagor against the property mortgaged. Besides Sanwal Singh, defendant, no other heir of Umrao Singh, principal mortgagor, and of Mangal Singh, who has not been heard of, is in existence.' This suit was instituted on the 2nd of August, 1910. In the written statement it was stated that Mangal Singh was alive and was in the service of the Indore State, and that he was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »