Allahabad Court June 1917 Judgments
Sajjadi Begam and ors. Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All700
Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiffs came into court as the heirs of one Musammat Turab-un-uissa. They claimed to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money as arrears of an annuity, or malilcana, charge, alleged to be payable by the defendant as the successor in interest of the mortgagee under a certain mortgage deed of the 1st of December, 1870. The defendant resisted the claim on three grounds, with two of which we are no longer concerned. He said that one Biamilla Begam was a necessary party to the suit and also put the plaintiffs to proof of their title as heirs of Ttirab-un-nissa. These two points have been concluded against him. His third plea was to the effect that under a series of sale-deeds, beginning with the 3rd of November, 1912, and ending with the 16th of November, 1913, he had himself become the owner of the equity of redemption under the mortgage deed of the 1st of December, 1870. He contended that the liability sought to be enforced against him...
Tag this Judgment!Sri NaraIn Vs. Jagannath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All128; 41Ind.Cas.890
1. We have come to the conclusion that this decision cannot stand as it is at present, and there being an important question of jurisdiction raised, we ought to interfere even in revision. The question whether any part of the cause of action arose in the Court of Cawnpore depends entirely upon the place where, under the contract, either by express agreement or by the intention of the parties, repayment was to be made. Both parties have set up an express contract. That alleged by the plaintiff alone has been considered and has been dealt with, as would appear, rather in the light of what was decided by the Bikaneer Court. It is by no means clear that the previous judgment of that Court was admissible. It is not desirable to say more about the facts than this that in an ordinary case, especially a case against a Bank or some trader who holds himself out as a person to receive deposits, it would not necessarily follow that a re-payment of the deposit was to be made at the place of busines...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Sajjadi Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.839
1. In this case the plaintiffs came into Court as the heirs of one Musammat Turab-un-nissa. They claimed to recover I from the defendant a certain sum of money) as arrears of annuity, or malikana charge, alleged to be payable by the defendant as the successor-in-interest of the mortgagee under a certain mortgage-deed of December the 1st, 1870. The defendant resisted the claim on three grounds, with two of which we are no longer concerned. He said that one Bismilla Begam was a necessary party to the suit and also put the plaintiffs to proof of their title as heirs of Turab-un-nissa. These two points have been concluded against him. His third plea was to the effect that under a series of sale-deeds, beginning with the 3rd of November 1912 and ending with the 16th of November 1913, he had himself become the owner of the equity of redemption under the mort-gage deed of December the 1st 1870 He contended that the liability sought to be enforced against him attached to him only so long as he...
Tag this Judgment!Bulaqi Chand Vs. Ilias Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All672
Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. Putting on one side a small matter of detail which is not in issue now before us, the essential point to be determined in this second appeal is the following: The plaintiff respondent and the defendants appellants are the joint owners of a certain house, the plaintiff's share being and that of the defendants appellants. The plaintiff sued for partition of his share. His suit was resisted upon a variety of grounds; but in paragraph 7 of the written statement the defendant did claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, No, IV of 1893, and did make an unconditional offer to purchase the plaintiff's share. The court of first instance decreed a partition by metes and bounds, and it would seem that a final decree was actually passed. The defendants went up in appeal against that decree and obtained its reversal, on the ground that they had claimed the benefit of Section 4 of Act IV of 1893 and were entitled to a decree for the sale to them of the plaintiff'...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Prasad and ors. Vs. Bakhtawar Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All694
Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for profits. The plaintiff's claim has been decreed, upon a finding that the evidence on the record is sufficient to prove that at least 90 per cent, of the recorded rental during the years in suit was actually realized by the lambardar, the father of the defendants appellants. We cannot interfere with that finding of fact unless it can be shown to be open to exception on some legal ground. The point taken is that the learned District Judge has based his decision upon the report of a certain commissioner appointed by the Assistant Collector, though the Assistant Collector himself had declined to act upon that report which was open to exception upon various grounds. The learned District Judge has discussed this matter at length, and he has fully realized that the report of the commissioner must be accepted with caution. The question which we have to determine, however, is simply whether it is admissible in evidence. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamplu Vs. Kutramani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All696
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference to this Court under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, 1894. The facts of the case are simple. One Julphu had two sons, Balku and Jhamplu; they were by different wives. He died leaving property in mauza Banuhuri. After his death the names of the two sons were recorded, each as owner of a half share. Balku, however, when a boy went away from the village to live in mauza Debraua, and Jhamplu remained in sole possession of the property. In the year 1901, Balku began to assert his right, and he applied to the court for partition of his half share. An amin was deputed to carry out the partition, but he returned his commission unexecuted reporting the fact that the two brothers had come to terms. The suit for partition was withdrawn. About the same time Balku executed a document in favour of Jhamplu, which, however, was unregistered. It was tantamount to a relinquishment of his rights; but, being unregistered, it did not operate...
Tag this Judgment!ilias Ahmad and ors. Vs. Bulaqichand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.867
1. Putting on one side a small matter of detail which is not in issue now before us, the essential point to be determined in this second appeal is the following. The plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-appellants are the joint owners of a certain house, the plaintiff's share being 5/8ths and that of the defendants appellants 3/8ths. The plaintiff sued for partition of his share. His suit was resisted upon a variety of grounds; but in paragraph 7 of the written statement the defendants did claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act, IV 1893, and did make an unconditional offer to purchase the plaintiff's share. The Court of first instance decreed a partition by metes and bounds, and it would seem that a final decree, was actually passed. The defendants went up in appeal against that decree and obtained its reversal, on the ground that they had claimed the benefit of Section 4 of Act IV of 1893 and were entitled to a decree for the sale to them of the plaintiff's share. On t...
Tag this Judgment!Jhamphu Vs. Kutramani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All47; 42Ind.Cas.713
Tudball, J.1. This is a reference to this Court under rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, 1894. The facts of the case are simple. One Julphu had two sons, Balku and Jhamphu; they were by different wives. He died leaving property in Mama Banchuri. After his death the names of the two sons were recorded, each as owner of a half share, Balku, however, when a boy went away from the village to live in Mauza Debrana. Jhamphu remained in sole possession of the property. In the year 1901, Balku began to assert his right and he applied to the Court for partition of his half share. An amin was deputed to carry out the partition, but he returned his commission unexecuted reporting the fact that the two brothers had come to terms. The suit for partition was withdrawn. About the same time Balku executed a document in favour of Jhamphu which, however, was unregistered. It was tantamount to a relinquishment of his rights, but being unregistered it did not operate to trans...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Lal and anr. Vs. Sheo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All70; 42Ind.Cas.720
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for profits. The plaintiff's claim has been decreed, upon a finding that the evidence on the record is sufficient to prove that at least 90 percent, of the recorded rental during the years in suit was actually realised by the lambardar, the father of the defendants appellants. We cannot interfere with that finding of fact, unless it can be shown to be open to exception on some legal ground. The point taken is that the learned District Judge has based his decision upon the report of a certain Commissioner appointed by the Assistant Collector, though the Assistant Collector himself had declined to act upon that report, which was open to exception. upon various grounds. The learned District Judge has discussed this matter at length and he has fully realised that the report of the Commissioner must be accepted with caution. The question which we have to determine, however, is simply whether it is admissible in evidence. The provisions of Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Nandrani Kunwar Vs. Bharat Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All689
Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. In this suit the plaintiff came into Court alleging that she was the lambardar and zamindar of a certain mahal. The defendant, who : was described as Bharat Das, disciple of Rikhi Das, muafidar of the said mauza and mahal, was alleged to be a muafidar of 62 bighas, 12 biswas, of land in suit granted for charitable purposes. The suit was brought for resumption of this grant. In reply the defendant pleaded, first, that the land itself had been dedicated to the temple of Sri Radha Krishnaji and was therefore waqf property appertaining to an endowment in favour of the said temple of which the defendant was the manager. He repeated this plea in a slightly different form, alleging that the muafidar against whom the suit should have been brought was Sri Thakur Radha Krishnaji, the idol worshipped in the temple above referred to, The next plea, in the alternative, raised by him was that, if he was in fact himself the muafidar as alleged in the plaint, then this land ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »