Allahabad Court June 1914 Judgments
Maqbul Fatima and ors. Vs. Amir Hasan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All514; (1915)ILR37All1
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for reliefs set forth in the following words:(a) That it be declared that the 'judgement', dated the 2nd of February, 1911, by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, between the parties, and upheld by the Honourable High Court on the 6th of November, 1912, is binding between the parties, and operates as res judicata against the defendants on the points heard and decided between them in all subsequent proceedings even in the Rampur court.(b) That the defendants be restrained by a perpetual injunction from continuing their suit in the court of the District Judge of the Rampur State against the plaintiffs, which they have instituted there for the recovery of a moiety of the estate situated in the ceded district of Rampur * * * * * *.2. It will be convenient very shortly to state here the facts which led to the institution of the present suit. At one time one Nawab Muhammad A...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Maqbul Fatima and ors. Vs. Amir Hasan Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.193
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for reliefs set forth in the following words:(a). That it be declared that the judgment, dated the 2nd February 1911, by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly between the parties and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court on the 6th November 1912, is binding between the parties, and operates as res judicata against the defendants on the points heard and decided between them in all subsequent proceedings even in the Rampur Court.' (b). That the defendants be restrained by a perpetual injunction from continuing their suit in the Court of the District Judge of the Rampur State against the plaintiffs,, which they have instituted there for the recovery of a moiety of the estate situated in the ceded District of Rampur* * * *'2. It will be convenient very shortly to state here the facts which led to the institution of the present suit. At one time one Nawab Muhammad Altaf Ali Khan was the owner of considerable propert...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Anaragi Kunwar Vs. Kashi Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All362; 25Ind.Cas.197
Sunder Lal, J.1. This a suit for the redemption of a mortgage' said to be made 14 years ago by Ram Harakh Rai in favour of Kashi Rai to secure a sum of Rs. 36. Under this mortgage the mortgagee was entitled to appropriate the produce in lieu of interest. He was, however, bound to pay Government revenue. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. But the learned Judge in appeal has reversed that decree. In the first place, according to the plaintiff, the mortgage was made by an unregistered document which has not been proved. No witness had been called who could give an account of the contents of the said document. The Court also considered the witnesses to be tutored. In that view the mortgage in suit not having been found to be proved, the Court rightly dismissed the suit. Mr. Jang Bahadur Lal, on behalf of the appellant, has argued that in the first plea in the written statement filed by the defendant the fact of mortgage, though with somewhat different conditions, was admitted a...
Tag this Judgment!Sagwa and anr. Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All442; 25Ind.Cas.197a
Rafique, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted under the following circumstances:Banarsi Das, Dhanpat Rai, Sagwa and Kallu and some others were co-sharers in the village of Bijauli, Parganah Sarnwah, Tahsil Hapur. There was a partition of the village in 1316 fasli under which plot No. 364/1 with other lands fell to the lot of Banarsi Das and Dhanpat Rai. The said plot prior to the partition was in possession of Sagwa and Kallu. Subsequent to the partition Banarsi Das and Dhanpat Rai leased the said plot to one Ram Saran for building purposes. Ram Saran was resisted in his attempt to take possession of the plot in question by Sagwa and Kallu and a female relation of theirs, called Musammat Chhoni, who apparently lived with them. Thereupon Ram Saran instituted the present suit for the recovery of possession of the said plot impleading Sagwa, Kallu and Musammat Chhoni, and also his lessors as defendants. The lessors put in no defence. Sagwa and Kallu contested t...
Tag this Judgment!Pandohi and anr. Vs. Sheo Bharos and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All236; 25Ind.Cas.141
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is a suit arising out of proceedings taken in the Revenue Court by the respondents for the ejectment of the appellant as their shikmi (sub-tenants). The appellants resisted the suit on the ground that they were not the shihmi or sub-tenants of the land but the tenants of the zemindars. The Revenue Court found against them and gave a decree for ejectment. Sheo Bharos and others then brought a suit for declaration that they were occupancy-tenants of the land and that the defendants had no concern or connection with it. The claim originally was dismissed as barred by the rule of res judicata. The case came up before this Court in appeal as Sheo Bharose V. Pandohi Ahir 18 Ind. Cas. 220 before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chamier who, on January 17th, 1913, held following certain rulings of this Court that the matter in controversy was not res judicata and remanded the case to the lower Appellate Court for disposal on the merits. The case had been disposed of originally by ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Riaz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All411; 25Ind.Cas.186
Sunder Lal, J.1. One Muhammad Ahmad owned the house in suit which he mortgaged with possession on 5th March 1912 to the plaintiff. Two days later, i.e., on 7th March 1912, the plaintiff gave the house on rent to his mortgagor who executed an agreement to hold the house for five years as a tenant at a rent of Its. 2 per mensem. One of the conditions of the agreement was that in case of non-payment of rent the lessor was entitled to eject the lessee, notwithstanding that the term of five years had not expired.2. Muhammad Ahmad entered into possession of the house let, but paid no rent at all, and on 20th August 1912 the plaintiff sent him a notice calling upon him to vacate the house by the end of the month of the tenancy. Muhammad Ahmad, however, died the same day, leaving the first three defendants as his heirs and legal representatives. It also appears that Muhammad Ahmad had sub let the house to the fourth defendant, Ali Bakhsh. The plaintiff thereupon issued fresh notices to defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Bishan and anr. Vs. Mehar Ilahi Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All386; 25Ind.Cas.224
Sunder Lal, J.1. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties:BIRBAL,____________|_____________| |Ram Karan, Moti,| |Mohar Singh, _______|______ _______|_________ | || | Jagrup. Rajrup,| | |Ganga Bishan, Niadar Khiinma, |plaintiff. plaintiff. |Tarif=Musammat Sujani|Dharam Singh.2. It is common ground that the pro-party in suit belonged to Tarif who died in February 1907. The property then according to the plaintiffs passed on to his son Dharam Singh who died in April 1907. On his death his mother Sujani inherited it. On 2nd July 1912 Musammat Sujani executed a deed of mortgage of this property in favour of the second defendant for Rs. 300. The plaintiffs who are the next reversioners to the estate according to the pedigree set forth above sue to obtain a declaration that the said mortgage was made without any legal necessity or consideration and is null and void as against them, and not binding upon them as next reversioners to the estate. The defence to the suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Khurshedi Begam Vs. Khurshed Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All452; 25Ind.Cas.213
Sunder Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the plaintiff Khurshed Ali, against his wife, Khurahedi Begam, and her father Hashmat Ali. His case is that he was married to Khurshedi Begam in August 1907 and lived with her at her house in Kasha Hapur for some months. He then left for Indore in search of service which he obtained in the Police Department of the Indore State. He Teturned back to Hapur about a year ago. It appears that the plaintiff has no property or income of any kind nor has he a house of his own. On the other hand his wife Khurshedi Begam owns property said to be worth about Rs. 20,000 which she has inherited from her maternal grandfather and from her former husband. The wife is about twenty years in age and the plaintiff is a few years older.2. On his return to Hapur plaintiff began to live with the defendant at her father's house but after residence for a few months. at his father-in-law's place he seems to hav...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Das Vs. Raj Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All567
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage, dated the 8th of January, 1874. The suit was not instituted until the 13th of May, 1911. Both the courts below have granted a decree for sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants 6---11 have appealed. Their case is that they had acquired title by adverse possession as against the mortgagor and that, therefore, the present suit as. against them Is barred by limitation. Article 132 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act provides that a suit to 'enforce payment of money charged upon immovable property may be brought within 12 years from the time when the money sued for became due.' It is admitted here that, having regard to Section 31 of Act No. IX of 1908, the present suit, as a suit under article 132, is within time. The appellants contend that so far as they are concerned the suit must be governed by article 144, which provides that a suit for possession of Immovable property must be brought within 12 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Puthi Vs. Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All127; 25Ind.Cas.27
1. This is a second appeal preferred by the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of immoveable property with mesne profits On the 15th of November 1911, the defendant by a sale-deed transferred the property in suit to the plaintiff-respondent for the sum of Rs. 1,400. In the body of the deed the vendor recited that he had received payment of Rs. 1,400 by credit to a debt due from him on a mortgage-deed of the 28th of November 1900. After the execution of the deed the plaintiff applied for mutation of names, but the defendant objected. He pleaded that, as a matter of fact, he had not received payment of the consideration in full. The application for mutation was rejected, whereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit for possession. The defendant's case was that, as a matter of fact' Rs. 1,400 was not due from him to the plaintiff on the mortgage-deed, that the parties had agreed that an account should be taken because the plaintiff had, as a matter ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »