Allahabad Court April 1918 Judgments
Munna Lal Vs. Gobaudhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All584
Pramada Charan Banerji and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. Sohan Lal and Shiam Lal, defendants, executed two mortgages in favour of Misri Lal and Murli on the 20th of October, 1906 and the 8th of April, 1908, respectively. In both mortgages the same property, namely, 4 3/4 biswas of mauza Behta, mahal Munna Lal, was mortgaged. Subsequently to these mortgages, the mortgagors mortgaged a one biswa share out of the aforesaid 4 3/4 biswas in favour of Munna Lal. The mortgagees brought two separate suits on the basis of the two mortgages, and impleaded as defendants to each suit not only the mortgagors but Munna Lal also. Munna Lal was made a party to each of these suits as subsequent mortgagee of a one biswa share. The first suit was decreed on the 25th of January, 1913, and the second on the 26th of March, 1914, In the first suit Munna Lal did not appear, but the mortgagors raised the plea that they were the owners of a one bi...
Tag this Judgment!Jhuri Singh and ors. Vs. Hindu Singh and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All590
Pramada Charan Banerji and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This is a somewhat unfortunate case. The facts which have given rise to it are as follows.2. The plaintiffs, who are six in number, brought a suit for the same relief which they have claimed in the present suit. That case was taken up for hearing, and one of the plaintiffs was examined. The parties then informed the court that they would abide by the deposition of a particular person. A date was fixed and on that date the person named appeared, but refused to make any statement. Thereupon the case was postponed and the 15th of September, 1914 was fixed for hearing and the parties were ordered to produce their evidence on that date. On the 15th of September, 1914, when the case was called on for hearing, the defendants or their pleader did not appear. The plaintiffs' pleader also did not appear. One of the plaintiffs, Jhuri Singh, was present, but he did not 'prosecute the suit' by which we understand the trial court to mean that he adduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Hingo Singh and ors. Vs. Jhuri Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All333; 46Ind.Cas.390
1. This is a somewhat unfortunate case. The facts which have given rise to it are as follows. The plaintiffs, who are six in number, brought a suit for the same relief which they have claimed in the present suit. That case was taken up for hearing and one of the plaintiffs was examined. The parties then informed the Court that they would abide by the deposition of a particular person, A date was fixed and on that date the person named appeared but refused to make any statement. Thereupon the case was postponed and the 15th of September 1914 was fixed for hearing and the parties were ordered to produce their evidence on that date. On the 15th of September 1914, when the case was called on for hearing, the defendants or their Pleader did not appear. The plaintiffs' Pleader also did not appear. One of the plaintiffs Jhuri Singh was present but he did not 'prosecute the suit', by which we understand the trial Court to mean that he adduced no evidence. Thereupon the Court made an order dism...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Vs. Manna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All81(1); 46Ind.Cas.559
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. Sohan Lal and Shiam Lal, defendants executed two mortgages in favour of Misri Lal and Murli on the 20th of October 1906 and the 8th of April 1908 respectively. In both mortgages the same property, namely, 4 3/4 biswas of Mauza Behta, Mahal Munna Lal was mortgaged. Subsequently to these mortgages, the mortgagors mortgaged a one-biswa share out of the aforesaid 4 3/4 biswas in favour of Munna Lal. The mortgagees brought two separate suits on the basis of the two mortgages but impleaded as defendants to each suit not only the mortgagors but Munna Lal also. Munna Lal was made a party to each of these suits as subsequent mortgagee of a one-biswa share. The first suit was decree on the 25th of January 1913 and the second on the 26th of March 1914. In the first suit Munna Lal did not appear but the mortgagors raised the plea that they were the owners of a one biswa share only and were not competent to mortgage the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bharatpur State Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All151; 47Ind.Cas.823
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by an un-successful plaintiff, the Bharatpur State against the Secretary of State for India in Council, in which, the plaintiff's claim was for possession of a certain house. The house in question was admittedly situated within the limits of a village known as Mauza Sakitra. Without going further into the arguments which have been addressed to us on the point, I am content to say that I accept the argument of the defendant respondent to the effect that it is also situated within the limits of the town of Gobardhan. The last owners and occupiers of this house mentioned either in the plaint or in the written statement were two persons of the name of Dip Chand and Mansa Ram, who were Sahukars by profession and resided and carried on business in the said house. It is common ground that both these persons are now dead and have left no heirs en-titled to inherit their property. The de. fendant, acting through the Collector of Muttra, has taken possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Alamdar HusaIn Vs. Moti Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All337; 46Ind.Cas.382
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had sold some property to Moti Ram, defendant No. I. As the result of that transaction Moti Ram owed the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the sum of Rs. 800. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 sold their rights to the plaintiff by a deed, dated the 19th of May 1914. The consideration as set out in the sale-deed was as follows: Rs. 188-8-0 already due by the ladies to the plaintiff, Rs. 150 paid before the Registrar and a covenant to pay the balance of the purchase money (Rs. 750) by monthly instalments of Rs. 20. The plaintiff instituted the present suit and he made parties thereto the original debtor, Moti Ram and the two ladies. Moti Ram pleaded that he had already paid the debt. The ladies pleaded that they had not got the consideration which the plaintiff agreed to give them. It is true that they alleged in the written statement that the deed was 'fictitious,' but it is equally clear from their evide...
Tag this Judgment!Mohni Vs. Baij Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All3963(1); (1918)ILR40All582; 46Ind.Cas.394
Henry Richards, C.J., and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of right. The plaintiff claimed a certain house as being her property. The house had been attached by one Baij Nath in execution of a decree against Salig Ram and Sagar Mai. Salig Rain and Sagar Mal were declared insolvents and any property they had vested in the receiver. The Musammat, as already stated, claimed the property as being hers and said that it did not belong to Salig Ram or to Sagar Mal. Her objection having been disallowed, she was clearly entitled to bring a suit for a declaration of her title and a necessary party to that suit would be the receiver in insolvency who represented the claims (if any) of Salig Ram and Sagar Mal and their 'creditors. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit as being barred by the provisions of Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency-Act. That Section is as follows:--'If the insolvent, or any of the creditors or any other person is a...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjadi Begam Vs. Dilawar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All98; (1918)ILR40All579
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with this and the connected application are shortly as follows:--A suit was brought by the plaintiff for dower and also to set aside certain deeds executed by her deceased husband. A question as to the sufficiency of court fees arose, and eventually the court made a decree in the plaintiff's favour conditional upon her paying an extra court fee of Rs. 20, within a week. If this extra court fee was not paid the suit was to stand dismissed. What we have just now stated was all embodied in and was part of the decree itself. Unfortunately (it is said through the negligence of the plaintiff's pleader) she did not get proper information, with the result that she deposited Rs. 10 only within the time allowed. The defendants then made an application for execution of the decree on the ground that the decree was now in their favour, the deposit of Rs. 20 not having been made as provided in the decree. The plaintiff sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhup Singh and ors. Vs. Jai Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All384(2); 46Ind.Cas.387
1. This appeal comes out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover certain shares in what they alleged to be an occupancy holding. A pedigree will be found in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The common ancestor was a man called Girdhari. He had a number of sons and amongst them one Durjan Singh. Durjan Singh had a son named Bhim Sen, who left a widow Musammat Jiwalia but no children. She died some 9 months ago before the present suit was instituted, and it is to recover a 3/8ths share of what Bhim Sen held in a certain holding (viz., one-fourth) that the present suit has been brought. One of the defendants Roshan Singh alleged that he had been adopted by Musammat Jiwalia with authority from Bhim Sen. It has been found by both the Courts below that this is not true and if the property was ordinary immoveable property, the plaintiffs would undoubtedly have been entitled to succeed as the nearest reversioners. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that there was one large holding in t...
Tag this Judgment!Balgobind Rai and ors. Vs. Sheoraj Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All341; 46Ind.Cas.376
1. This application in revision arises under the following circumstances. In the year 1905 a suit was brought on foot of a mortgage. The plaintiff claimed the principal sum, interest up to date of suit and interest pendente lite and future interest. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim 'as proved' with costs and directed a decree to be prepared in the terms of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. The decree was drawn up and it awarded the plaintiff interest at the contractual rate up to the institution of the suit and up to the date fixed for payment and future interest at 6 per cent. per annum. The defendant appealed. He took no exception to any alleged variance between the judgment of the Munsif and the decree. The District Judge dismissed the appeal. The decree was made absolute in the year 1906. The decree was put into execution from time to time and partially executed. The present application was made in May 1917 to the District Judge to bring the decree into accordance...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »