Allahabad Court June 1913 Judgments
Alam Singh Vs. Gokul Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All484
Paramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This was a suit for sale under a mortgage, dated the 21st of April, 1892, executed in favour of the plaintiff, Alam Singh, by one Chatar Singh. The first set of defendants are the legal representatives of the mortgagor, who is now dead. The other defendants are subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property. It appears that on the 28th of June, 1895, a usufructuary mortgage of 1 biswa, 10 biswansis, out of the mortgaged property, the extent of which is 4 biswas, was made in favour of the plaintiff, Alam Singh, and Narain Singh, his brother. Narain Singh was not made a party to the suit. On the ground that Narain Singh was a necessary party to the suit under Order XXXIV, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure and had not been made a party, the court of first instance dismissed the suit. The decree of that court has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that the c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Raj Vs. Brij Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All470
Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. We do not think that there is any merit in this appeal. The facts are these: An application was made by Brij Nath for a succession certificate to realize debts due to Ram Ratan, deceased. Ram Raj, Brij Nath and Ranchhor stated themselves to be the next reversioners to the estate of Ram Ratan, and they agreed that the certificate should be granted to all three of them. This has been done, But as Musammat Tirbeni claimed to be the owner of some of the debts, the learned Judge has ordered the three persons to whom the certificate was granted to furnish security. It is contended that the order granting a certificate to three persons is illegal. No doubt, it is inconvenient that a certificate should be granted to more than one person, but in the case before us the persons to whom the certificate was granted agreed to its being granted to all of them. One of these persons is the appellant himself. We do not think that the appellant can now contend th...
Tag this Judgment!Nirma Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All466
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. One Musammat Parbati, the widow of one Ganga Ram, who was a Hindu, instituted a suit claiming, that she, in exercise of her legal rights, wished to make a well, and build a temple on a portion of the property in the possession of which she was as a Hindu widow. She alleged that the defendants to the suit were preventing her from exercising her legal rights and she claimed an injunction to restrain them. The plaintiff got a decree in the court of first instance. The defendants appealed. While the appeal was pending, Musammat Parbati became a convert to Muhammadanism and married one Wali Muhammad. She then put in a petition stating that she no longer wished to prosecute her suit and prayed that her suit might be dismissed. Thereupon the present respondent, Musammat Nirma, the mother of her husband, who would have been entitled to the estate for her life if Musammat Parbati were...
Tag this Judgment!Randhir Singh Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All541
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This and the connected appeal No. 765 of 1912 arise out of the same suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title in respect of a three anna two pie odd share in mauza Manjaba Hardaspur. It appears that on the 10th of June, 1901, Bhagwan Das, the respondent in this appeal and the appellant in the connected appeal, and five other persons, who wore defendants to the suit, sold a six anna eight pie share in the village in question to the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. At that time, however, mutation could only be obtained in respect of a three anna five pie odd share. In the year 1908, Bhagwan Das applied for partition, alleging himself to be entitled to certain shares in the village. The plaintiff contested the share claimed by Bhagwan Das. Thereupon the Revenue Court directed the plaintiff in the present suit to institute proceedings in the Civil Court, within three months, to establish his ti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›