Allahabad Court May 1914 Judgments
Musammat Baldei and ors. Vs. Abhey Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All99; 24Ind.Cas.540
Piggott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff-respondent, Abbey Ram, is a minor suing, through his father Nawal, for restitution of conjugal, rights as against his own wife, Musammat Baldei, and certain other persons who are alleged to be keeping her from him. The substantial defence set up was that Musammat Baldei had never gone through any ceremony of marriage of any sort or kind with Abhey Ram, but that she had, as a matter of fact, boon married to Tika Ram, a brother of Abhey Ram, since deceased. The lower Appellate Court has found in favour of the plaintiff upon all essential issues of fact and the defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. There was in the Courts below some controversy as to the age of the first defendant, Musammat Baldei, as to which the lower Appellate Court seems to have come to the conclusion that this lady was under eighteen years of age when the suit was filed, but had apparently attained the ago of eighteen years and ceased to be a minor by the time t...
Tag this Judgment!Sirdar Singh and ors. Vs. Ratan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All348; 24Ind.Cas.612
Rapique, J.1. This case has been referred to a Bench of two Judges, as when it came up before a learned Judge of this Court it was stated that whatever his decision may be an appeal would be preferred under the Letters Patent.2. The question raised in the appeal is, whether the sons who formed a joint Hindu family with their father, can sue to redeem property belonging to the joint family, which has been sold and purchased by the mortgagee at Court sale in a decree obtained against the father in a suit on the mortgage bond given by the father, when the security of the property was released and a simple money decree asked for and granted. The facts which led to the present appeal and the point under discussion are as follows : The plaintiffs-appellants and their father, Nandan Singh, were members of a joint undivided Hindu family. On the 28th September 1893 Nandan Singh alone executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of one Ratan Lal in lieu of Rs. 99 in respect of some of the joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal Vs. Musammat Durga and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All357; 24Ind.Cas.691
Piggoit, J.1. In this suit Musammat Durga, the plaintiff-respondent, claimed.2. Certain property as the widow of one Bhondu. The claim was resisted upon a variety of pleas. The most important were that the plaintiff's husband Bhondu had predeceased his father and that the suit was barred by limitation. These pleas have been decided against the defendants by the lower Appellate Court. In second appeal stress is laid on another plea which is also found in the written statement of the defendants. This plea was to the effect, that the plaintiff had re-married and had thereby lost any right she may ever have possessed to the property of Bhondu. It is contended that an express issue should have been framed on this point and should have been tried out by the Courts below. The first issue in the Court of first instance was--'is the plaintiff the owner of the property in dispute?' Upon that issue it was open to the defendants to tender any evidence they might wish to produce regarding the fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Guptar Tiwari Vs. Debi Saran Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All514
Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This is an execution case arising out of a pre-emption suit. The real facts seem to have been that the court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit subject to his making a payment of Rs. 999, Rs. 24 out of which should be paid to the vendee. The Munsif's decree was not strictly in accordance with the judgment. We are, however, not concerned with that now. He subsequently amended it. Whether he had power to do so, we need not decide. The vendee appealed, complaining that the consideration allowed ought to be more than that decreed by the court of first instance. Mr. Rose by his judgment directed that he (the pre-emptor) should deposit the further sum of Rs. 825, including the Rs. 24, directed by the first court. This was really in addition to the money payable to the prior mortgagee. No time was mentioned when this Rs. 801 should be paid. The decree which was made was a simple dismissal of the appeal, obviously not in accordance with the judgment...
Tag this Judgment!Bechu Sahu Vs. Natstd Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1914
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.700
Piggott, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for ejectment. The land in question consists of two fields forming part of a fixed-rate holding. According to the plaintiff these fields, along with others, were mortgaged to him with possession in the year 1894 and again in the year 1896. In the month of June 1909 the defendant entered into a contract of tenancy with the plaintiff, by which he agreed to occupy these two field as sub-tenant of the plaintiff at an annual rent of Rs. 15. He never paid any rent, and in the month of November 1911 denied ,the existence of any tenancy and denied the plaintiff's title. On this the plaintiff brought the present suit, for ejectment as against a trespasser, in a Civil Court. The defence on the merits was a curious one and involved questions which need not be discussed here. The learned Munsif, although he framed an issue as to whether or not the suit as brought was cognizable by a Civil Court, did not try this issue first, but went into other ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sarup and ors., Udai Ram and ors. Vs. Balgobind and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All505
Chamier and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This, appeal arises out of a suit for the dissolution of a partnership, A decree for dissolution was passed and a receiver was appointed, to make up the accounts of the partnership and submit a report. On receipt of the receiver's report a decree was passed. The plaintiffs in the suit preferred an appeal to the District Judge, and some of the respondents filed cross objections. Niadar Mal, one of the respondents to that appeal, in his cross objections raised a question between, himself and mother respondent which did not concern the appellants. The learned Judge, after a careful consideration of the objections both on behalf of this appellants and the respondents, modified the decree of the first court. The present appellants, who were respondents in the court below, object to the decree of the lower appellate court on two grounds. They say that, interest should not have been allowed on the sum found due to a partner either for the period prior to diss...
Tag this Judgment!Binaik Bhat and anr. Vs. NaraIn Dikshit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All510
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage. The plaintiff was toe on of the mortgagee. Defendants l and 2 wore the nephew and grand nephew of the mortgagor. Defendants 4 and 5 were representatives of the Sate Maharaja, of Ajudhia, to whom part of the mortgaged property was transferred by the mortgagor after the mortgage. Defendants 6, 7, 8 and 10 were impleaded as trustees of part of the property under a deed of endowment executed by the Maharaja.2. Defendant 1 pleaded that there was no legal necessity for the mortgage, and the same plea, among many others, was put forward by defendants 6 and 10.3. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim, holding that legal necessity for the mortgage had been proved.4. Defendants 5 and 10 appealed separately to the District Judge, who allowed both appeals, holding that legal necessity for the mortgage had not been established. The learned Judge dismissed, the suit with costs so far as it related to the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nathi Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All513
Piggott, J.1. The District Magistrate of Cawnpore has for certain reasons given in his order transferred a criminal case pending in the court of Mr. J. N. G. Johnston, Joint Magistrate of Cawnpore, for trial by Mr. R. H. Williamson, chairman of municipal board, Cawnpore. I have no doubt that when Mr. R. H. Williamson was gazetted to the office of chairman of the municipal board, and took charge of that office, he was thereby divested of his territorial jurisdiction as magistrate, lst class, attached to the Cawnpore district. Even if it could be contended that Mr. Williamson continued to be a magistrate of some sort while holding the office of chairman, municipal board, I am quite clear that he is not a magistrate subordinate to the District Magistrate. The order complained of cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside....
Tag this Judgment!The Gorakhpur Bank Limited Vs. Gur Prasad and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All507
Chamier and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the first respondent, the Gorakhpur Bank, Limited, for a declaration that it has a charge on the amount of a fixed deposit standing to the credit of the second respondent Majid Husain Khan in the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation, Limited. The facts are that in May, 1910, Majid Husain. Khan deposited Rs. 8,700 with the Kayastha Trading and Banking Corporation for three years to bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. A receipt in the ordinary form was issued to him containing in the margin the words 'Not transferable.' Majid Husain Khan in 1911 borrowed Rs. 4,650 from the Gorakhpur Bank, Limited, and on that occasion wrote to the Manager of that Bank a letter which is sot out in the judgment of the lower appellate court. It purports to authorize the Bank, in case the loan was not repaid, to recover the amount from the sum for the time being standing in Majid Husain Khan's name in fixed depos...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Sahu Vs. Mahipal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All349; 25Ind.Cas.939
1. This appeal arises under somewhat peculiar circumstances. Property was sold by Amrit Prasad Rai and Mahadeo Rai to the defendant-appellant, the purchase-money being Rs. 925 out of which Rs. 435 were left in the hands of the vendee for the purpose of discharge of a mortgage on other property of the vendors. The plaintiffs in the present suit brought a suit for pre-emption which resulted in a decree in their favour conditional on their paying into Court the sum of Rs. 925. The vendors apparently took no exception to the terms of this decree, though they were parties to the suit. The consequence was that the vendees-defendants in the pre-emption suit drew out of Court the whole Rs. 925, although they had not, as a matter of fact, paid the mortgagee. The mortgagee then brought a suit against the vendors and obtained a decree, which the vendors satisfied in order to save the property. The vendors then brought a suit purporting to be under the provisions of Section 55, Clause 4 (6), of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »