Allahabad Court June 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basanti Bibi and anr. Vs. Chunni Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All537
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the respondents for an alleged balance of purchase money and interest thereon.2. On the 21st of July, 1909, the respondents sold some zamindari property to the appellant for Rs. 15,000. Part of the property had been sold in execution of a decree and if, was intended that the appellant should get the execution sale set aside. But it wag discovered that according to order XXI, Rule 89, as then interpreted, neither the vendors nor the purchasers could get the sale set aside. Accordingly the appellant relinquished her interest in the property by a registered deed. The respondents then raised on a mortgage of the property in favour of one Parsotam Das, a sum sufficient to pay oil the decree-holder and in due course the sale was set aside. On the 28th of October, 1909, the respondents executed in favour of the appellant a deed whereby they sold to her the property which, had been the subject of the earlier sale together with some other pr...
Abdul Ahad and ors. Vs. Mahtab Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All171; 24Ind.Cas.674
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure. The mortgage was dated the 4th of December 1874 and was a mortgage by way of a conditional sale. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree and after a remand from this High Court the lower Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The appeal is by the plaintiffs who complained that the Court below in making its decree for foreclosure ought to have allowed the plaintiffs interest up to the date fixed for payment. The mortgage was for a term of five years. It provided that the usufruct should go against the interest save to the extent of Rs. 10 per annum. The mortgagor covenanted to pay this Rs. 10 per annum, that if default was made in paying the sum the property might be at once foreclosed, and further that until the principal and interest were re-paid he would not hypothecate or transfer the property. The Court below has made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs providing that the amount due ...
Tirbeni Sahai and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All532
Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. On the 26th of April, 1912, the court of first instance made a preliminary decree for partition. On the 12th of June, 1912, the defendants filed an appeal. On the 28th of June the first court, notwithstanding that an appeal against the preliminary decree was pending, made a final decree on the lines of its preliminary decree. On the 18th of April, 1913, the appeal against the preliminary decree came on for hearing. Objection was taken that the appellant, not having appealed against the final decree of the 28th of June, 1912, could not maintain his appeal against the preliminary decree. The court allowed this objection and dismissed the appeal. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal. The question which we have to decide is whether or not the fact that the defendants did not appeal against the final decree precludes the Court from hearing the appeal against the preliminary decree. Section 2, Clause (2) ...
Sachendra Nath Mitra and ors. Vs. Muhammad Habibullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All318; 24Ind.Cas.707
George Knox, J.1. This is an application made under Section 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking this Court to determine that the civil suit instituted by Sheikh Muhammad Habibullah against Suchendra Nath Mitra now pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra should proceed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in the District of Hoogli in the Presidency of Bengal. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by one Mohendra Lal Sarkar, one of the defendants in the civil suit mentioned. The affidavit is met by a counter-affidavit filed by Mohammad Yusuf Ali Khan, agent of Mohammed Habibullah who is plaintiff in the suit. The application is opposed. After hearing both parties it appears that the only ground for transfer which is worthy of consideration is that all witnesses in the case whom it would be necessary to examine on behalf of the defendants reside at or near Hoogli and their evidence would be procured at great expense and delay at Agra. In the affidavit fil...
Kanhaiya Lal and ors. Vs. Tirbeni Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All380; 24Ind.Cas.827
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. On the 26th of April 1912 the Court of first instance made a preliminary decree for partition. On the 12th of June 1912 the defendants filed an appeal. On the 28th of June the first Court, notwithstanding that an appeal, against the preliminary decree was pending, made a final decree on the lines of its preliminary decree. On the 18th of April 1913 the appeal against the preliminary decree came on for hearing. Objection was taken that the appellant not having appealed against the final decree of the 28th of June 1912 could not maintain his appeal against the preliminary decree. The Court allowed this objection and dismissed the appeal. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal. The question which we have to decide is whether or not the fact that the defendants did not appeal against the final decree precludes the Court from hearing the appeal against the preliminary decree. Section 2, Clause 2 of t...
Bihari Lal Vs. Deoki Nandan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All350; 24Ind.Cas.867
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 29th of March 1870. The mortgaged property consisted of two sets of property. The present appeal relates only to a plot of muafi. The first Court excluded this plot of muafi from the decree on the ground that it was not subject to the mortgage or liable to be sold for realising the amount thereof. The lower Appellate Court has modified the decree of the Court of first instance by including the plot in question. I have already mentioned that the mortgage sued on is dated the 29th of March 1870. The plot in question was mortgaged by way of usufructuary mortgage on the 4th of September 1861, a decree was obtained on the 26th of August 1867 by the mortgagee under this usufructuary mortgage and the property was purchased by the defendant or his prodecessor-in-title under a said held under the decree or August 1867 in 1872. The real question is whether or not the decree of the 26th of August 1887...
Muhammad Najib-ullah Vs. Jai NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All529
Richards, C.J. and Tudball J.1. This appeal arises out of suit brought under the following circumstances. On the 14th of October, 1887, a mortgage was executed by Chattar Singh, the defendant No. 2, in favour of Ram Saran Das, father of the defendant Jai Narain. A decree was obtained on foot of this mortgage in the year 1892. Certain property was sold in execution of that decree on the 26th of November, 1910, and purchased by the plaintiff. How it was that the decree remained under execution for this protracted period is not explained. The sale was confirmed and plaintiff was put into formal possession. He then alleges that he applied for mutation, when it appeared from a report of the Kanungo that Chattar Singh had already sold the property under two sale deeds, dated respectively the 17th of September, 1880, and the 23rd of June, 1886. Mutation was refused and thereupon the present suit was instituted. It is not shown that the plaintiff was in any way opposed by the vendees under the...
Ramcharan and ors. Vs. Jagan Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All151; 24Ind.Cas.737
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by certain defendants against whom the plaintiffs' claim for a declaration has been decreed by both the Courts below. The essential facts maybe stated as follows : Gyan Singh, father of the defendants, mortgaged with possession certain zemindari property to one Prem Masih on August the 20th, 1881. On November the 4th, 1886, Gyan Singh executed in favour of the same Prem Masih a deed of simple mortgage hypothecating the same property. This deed contained the usual covenant giving the mortgagee power of sale, but it also contained a special covenant to the effect that in no case would the mortgagor be entitled to redeem the usufructuary mortgage of August the 20th, 1881, without first paying off whatever was due from him under this later deed of 1888. On December 31st, 1894, the sons of Prem Masih executed a deed of sale by which they purported to transfer all their proprietary and mortgagee rights in certain zemindari, including that mortgaged to th...
Mohamad Sadiq Vs. Jaigopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All190; 24Ind.Cas.873
Chamier, J.1. In this case a preliminary decree for sale was passed by the Court of first instance on April 13th, 1914. The present appellant, one of the defendants to the suit, being one of the heirs of the original mortgagors, appealed to the District Court with the result that the decree of the first Court was slightly modified. On June 20th, 1912, a final decree for sale was prepared under Order XXXIV, Rule 5. Meanwhile the appellant had filed a second appeal to this Court. That appeal was dismissed with costs on January 23rd, 1913. The question for decision is whether the appellant is personally liable for the costs given against him by this Court. It is contended on his behalf that those costs are costs subsequent to the decree within, the meaning of Order XXXIV, Rule 10, and should be paid, if possible, out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Ghaous Muhammad 22 Ind. Cas. 42 : 11 A.L.J. 975 Justice Piggott declined to hold that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›