Allahabad Court November 1915 Judgments
Bansgopal and ors. Vs. Sheo Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All97
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit for foreclosure of a mortgage said to have been made on the 25th of February, 1866. The principal sum alleged to have been secured was Rs. 3,000. The interest claimed is Rs. 16,000, in all Rs. 19,000. The suit was instituted in August, 1910, a few days before the expiration of the special period of grace allowed by Section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. This provision was passed to meet the supposed hardship occasioned by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of: Vasudeva Mudatliar v. Srinivasa Pillai (1907) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 426. There can be very little doubt that this enactment led to the institution of many doubtful mortgage suits. It is not alleged that from the date of the mortgage to the institution of the suit any payment had ever been made upon foot of the principal or interest secured by the mortgage. The plaintiffs were unable oven to produce the original mortgage dee...
Tag this Judgment!Jiban Kunwar Vs. Gobind Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All56
George Knox, Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The following case has been stated by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of these Provinces to this Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. The case stated runs as follows:--On the 23rd of August, 1914, one Mathura Das died childless leaving property of the estimated value of Rs. 2,25,000. The sister of the deceased applied for letters of administration. Gobitid Das, a collateral of Mathura Das, disputed her claim. 'Eventually the two claimants effected a compromise, and to give effect to this compromise both the parties executed separate instruments of een date on the 14th of September, 1914. Eachinstrument was treated as a deed of release and was stamped with a stamp of Rs. 5. The instrument executed by Gobind Das was presented for registration and was impounded by the Sub-Registrar, who considere it to be an instrument of partition chargeable with a duty of Rs. 375. The instrument was sent to the Collector, who cons...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ugrah Pande and ors. Vs. Achraj Nath Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All369; (1916)ILR39All85
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application made in the court below which was primarily based on Clause 17 of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure. While the matter was pending an application for amendment was made and an alternative relief was asked for under Clause 20 of the same schedule. The lower court has refused both the reliefs. The first relief, which was claimed under Clause 17 it rejected on the ground that an award had been made by the arbitrator on the basis of the agreement between the parties and that Clause 17 could not apply, the matter having attained a stage beyond that contemplated by that clause. With regard to the relief claimed under Clause 20, it rejected it on the ground that the application was barred by time under Article 178 of the first schedule to the Limitation Act. The applicants have come here on appeal. The parties are the descendants of one Prag Dat Pande. The latter had five sons, one of whom died childles...
Tag this Judgment!Salik Ram Vs. Barati Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All107
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff respondent claimed possession of a house purchased by him from two persons, namely, Musammat Shamo and Khunni Lal. He purchased half the house from Musammat Shamo and the other half from Khunni Lal on different dates, There is no dispute in this appeal in respect to the half share purchased from Musammat Shamo. As regards the half share purchased from Khunni Lal the facts are these: The share in question belonged to Bhagga Lal and after his death was apparently in the possession of his daughter-in-law, the widow of a predeceased son. Upon her death the appellant Barati Lal made an application in the Revenue Court for the entry of hid name as the heir of Bhagga Lal and the owner of his property. This application was resisted by Musammat Mohan Dei, the daughter of Bhagga Lal, who assorted that her father was separate and that she was entitled to succeed to the property. The dispute resulted in...
Tag this Judgment!Barati Lal Vs. Salik Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All441; 31Ind.Cas.919
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff-respondent claimed possession of a house purchased by him from two persons, namely, Musammat Shamo and Khunni Lal. He purchased half the house from Musammat Shamo and the other half from Khunni Lal on different dates. There is no dispute in this appeal in respect to the half share purchased from Musammat Shamo. As regards the half share purchased from Khunni Lal the facts are these: The share in question belonged toBhagga Lal and after his death, was apparently in the possession of his daughter-in-law, the widow of a predeceased son. Upon her death, the appellant Barati Lal made an application in the Revenue Court for the entry of his name as the heir of Bhagga Lal and the owner of his property. This application was resisted by Musammat Mohan Dei, the daughter of Bhagga Lal, who asserted that her father was separate and that she was entitled to succeed to the property. The dispute resulted in the execution of a document on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Har NaraIn and ors. Vs. Bishambhar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All340; 31Ind.Cas.907
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 355 of 1914. It is a suit for partition brought by Bishambhar Nath and Musammat Chiraunji against Har Narain and his son Amba Prasad. Bishambhar Nath is the brother of Har Narain. Musammat Chiraunji is the mother of Bishambhar Nath and step-mother of liar Narain. The only point which arises in the appeal, is the share to which Musammat Chiraunji is entitled upon partition. The defendants contend that she is only entitled to a share out of the share allotted on partition to her son. On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend that the property must be divided into three parts, one part should be allotted to Bishambhar Nath, one part to Musammat Chiraunji and a third part to Har Narain. The Court below has acceded to the contention of the plaintiffs. The defendants have appealed. Reliance was placed on the case of Hemangini Dasi v. Kedar. Nath Kundu Chowdhry 16 C. 758 : 16 I.A. 115 : 13 Ind. Jur. 210 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 374. This no doubt would...
Tag this Judgment!Masiat-ullah Vs. Mahabir Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR39All103
Pramada Charan Banerji and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The property sought to be redeemed is a share in the village Paniyala, which, along with other property, was mortgaged by one Haidar Bakhsh, who was the owner of it. He executed three mortgages, in one of which dated the 27th of March, 1864, a 91/2 biswa share in Paniyala was mortgaged along with shares in two other villages. On the 3rd of April, 1864, he mortgaged five more biswas of the same village along with other property. On the 6th of February 1873, he executed a mortgage for Rs. 15,000, and out of the consideration for that mortgage he declared that Rs. 3,500 was to be a fur her charge on the property comprised in the mortgage of the 27th of March, 1864. In the description of the property on which a further charge was thus placed, were mentioned. 91/2 biswa share in each of the villages of Anuda, Hasan Mahdud and Halla Nagla; so that, instead of mentioning Paniyala under the m...
Tag this Judgment!Chutta Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.145
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by one Chutta who has been convicted on a charge framed under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, and on a further charge under Section 75 of the same Code. The appeal raises in the first instance a question of procedure. It is contended that the trial as held was invalid, because it took place before a Court which was not properly constituted in accordance with law. It was required by law that the trial should be held before the Sessions Judge and at least two assessors, the latter to be chosen as the Judge might deem fit from persons summoned to act as such. In this case the trial took place before the first Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh sitting with two assessor. As regards one of those there is no doubt that he was properly summoned and properly chosen in accordance with law. The question raised is as to the other assessor, Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Ghulam Hyder. I find that this gentleman's name was at the time of the trial duly entered in the list of a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad and anr. Vs. Muhammad Mashiyatullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All108; 32Ind.Cas.174
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The property sought to be redeemed is a share in the village Paniyala, which along with other property was mortgaged by one Haidar Baksh who was the owner of it. He executed three mortgages, in one of which, dated the 27th of March 1864, a 9 1/2 biswa share in Paniyala was mortgaged along with shares in two other villages. On the 3rd of April 1964, he mortgaged five more biswas of this same village along with other property. On the 6th of February 1873, he executed a mortgage for Rs. 15,000 and out of the consideration for that mortgage he declared that Rs. 3,500 was to be a further charge on the property comprised in the mortgage of the 27th of March 1864. In the description of the property on which a further charge was thus placed, were mentioned 9 1/2 biswas shares in each of the villages of Anuda, Hasan Mahdud, and Halla Nagla; so that instead of mentioning Paniyala under the mortgage of 27th March 1864 which togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Abid Ali Vs. Imam Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1916All130; (1916)ILR39All92; 32Ind.Cas.177
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiff appellant against the defendants in respect of a mortgage, dated the 11th of April, 1908, alleged to have been executed in favour of Dalel Khan and Sikandar Khan by the parties to this suit. The plaintiff discharged the mortgage and he claims to recover from the defendants their rateable share of liability for the mortgage debt. The defendants denied the execution of the mortgage and the payment of consideration. It was further contended on behalf of Imam Ali that he was of unsound mind at the date of the mortgage, and that the mortgage, if at all made, had been obtained from him by undue influence. On behalf of Shahamat Ali, who is a minor, it was urged that his mother, who is said to have executed the mortgage as his guardian, was not competent to do so on his behalf, that there was no necessity for the mortgage, and that he did not benefit by it. The court of first instance found ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »