Allahabad Court April 1920 Judgments
Gulshan Ali Vs. Zakir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.55
Tudball, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is one to recover a debt due on a simple mortgage executed in favour of one Musammat Allahjilai. The creditor died and two persons, Musammat Said-un-nissa and Musammat Wahid-un-nissa, claiming to be her heirs, sold their rights to one Masit Ali ; and the latter transferred his right to the plaintiff Zakir Ali. The latter's suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the simple ground that he had not produced a succession certificate The lower Appellate Court has taken the opposite view and has remanded the case for trial on its merits.2. The defendant appeals, and the sole question is whether or not the plaintiff is bound to produce a succession certificate before he can receive a decree for the amount claimed. I should have had no difficulty in deciding this case were it not for an expression of opinion by the two Judges of this Court who decided the case of Raman Lalji Maharaj v. Hari Das 34 Ind. Cas. 364 : 14 A.L.J....
Tag this Judgment!Tulshi Ram Vs. Tula Ram and ors. and Ram Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All559
Pramada Charan Banerji and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a morbgage executed on the 5th of July, 1904, by Hulas Rai, Jawahir Lal and Dori Lal, who were members of the same; family. The appellants before us are the descendants of Hulas Rai, and it is contended on their behalf that the mortgage was executed without any family necessity and is therefore not binding on the joint family property which was comprised in the mortgage. The amount, secured by the mortgage was Rs. 3,000, and this amount was alleged to have been due to the mortgagee, Sohan Lal, who is now dead and is represented by his adopted son, the plaintiff, under an earlier mortgage of the 19th of June, 1891, executed by Hulas Rai and Jawahir Lal in favour of Sohan Lal for Rs. 2,000. We may mention that the present [appellants have purchased the interests of Jawahir Lal in the mortgaged property, and in the sale deed which was executed in their favour one-half of the mortgage money due to the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All101; (1920)ILR42All555; 57Ind.Cas.520
Pramada Charan Banrji and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Cawnpore in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. A certain area of land approximating 9 acres has been 'acquired for the erection of a European Civil Hospital at Cawnpore. The Collector assessed the compensation for this land, with a few buildings and trees upon it, at Rs. 30,000. Musammat Krishna Bai who is the owner of the land did not accept this amount and claimed Rs. 89,301 more. It appears that in 1895 the land had been purchased by Musammat Krishna Bai's husband for Rs. 2,000, on condition that it was to be used for the erection of bungalows, and for no other purpose. The learned District Judge has accepted the calculation of the Collector on the following basis: that under the new rules of the Municipal Board only four separate bungalows can be built on this land, that the cost of building a bungalow which would yield Rs. 100 as monthly rent would be...
Tag this Judgment!Tajammal HussaIn and anr. Vs. Ali Bahadur Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All175(2); 56Ind.Cas.946
George Knox, J.1. This is one of those numerous oases in which Civil Courts attempt to grasp jurisdiction. The plaint is ingeniously worded and the plaintiff has gone so far as to add an unnecessary person in the array of defendants, but the real remedy that the plaintiff seeks for is to recover possession of his holding. The suit should have been brought under Section 79, and that being the case, no Court other than a Revenue Court is allowed to take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any suit might be brought or made. The words are very wide and in my opinion purposely made wide, in order to keep Civil Courts to their proper business and to keep them from meddling with matters which are best understood and best decided by Revenue Courts.2. The learned Advocate for the respondent attempted to make a strong case and to maintain that this was not a matter for revision. He called my attention to the following cases : Jwala Prasad v. East Indian Railway Co. 46 Ind. Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Kumar Mokerji Vs. Thakur Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All544
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a mortgage decree. It appears that on the 2nd of January, 1918, one Kanhya Lal obtained a final decree for sale of two villages, Pasi and Amilia, and one house, against Thakur Prasad, the present respondent. In execution of a simple money decree against the latter, half of Pasi and the whole of Amilia and the house were sold at auction and purchased in the name of Hem Chandra on the 20th of March, 1918. Subsequently on the 7th of April, 1918, Dr. Mukerji, the father of Hem Chandra, purchased the whole of the mortgage decree from Kanhya Lal. Dr. Mukerji having got his name substituted in place of the original decree-holder under an order, dated the 24th of August, 1918, proceeded to execute the decree and wanted to realize the whole of the decretal amount by sale of only half the share in village Pasi, which was still owned by Thakur Prasad. The judgment-debtor put in objections to the application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Maina Bibi and After Her Death Chaudhri Khalilur Rahman and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All241; 58Ind.Cas.179
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Counsel. The value of the property in dispute in the Court of first instance and also in the Court of Appeal was over Rs. 10,000, but the dearer of this Court on appeal affirmed the decision of the Court below. It is, therefore, necessary for the applicants to show that some substantial question of law is involved or some question of general interest before leave can be given to them to appeal. The facts of the case are very clearly set forth in the judgment of this Court which is to be found in Maina Bibi v. Wasi Ahmad 51 Ind. Cas. 242 41 A. 538 : 17 A.L.J. 629 : 1 U.P.L.R. (A.) 106, It is urged before us that the second suit, that is the one out of which the present application has arisen, is barred by the rule of res judicata, that the former suit having been dismissed, no further suit will lie and that possession should not have been granted to the plaintiffs without their paying their share of the dower debt due at th...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sarju Kumar Mukerji Vs. Pandit Thakur Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All129; 58Ind.Cas.743
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a mortgage decree. It appears that on the 2nd of January 1918 one Kanhya Lal obtained a final decree for sale of two villages Pasi and Atnilia and one house against Thakur Prasad, the present respondent. In execution of a simple money-decree against the latter, half of Pasi and the whole of Amilia and the house were sold at auction and purchase d in the name of Hem Chandra on the 20th of March 1918. Subsequently, on the 7th of April 1918, Dr Mukerji, the father of Hem Chandra, purchase d the whole of the mortgage, decree from Kanhya Lal. Dr. Mukerji having got his name substituted in place of the original decree-holder under an order, dated the 24th of August 1918, proceeded to execute the decree and wanted to realize the whole of the decretal amount by sale of only half the share in village Pasi, which was still owned by Thakur Prasad. The judgment-debtor put in objections to the application for execution and pleaded that it...
Tag this Judgment!Gurcharan Kuar Vs. Deokinandan Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All212(1); 58Ind.Cas.760
Tudball, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. The plaintiff-appellant before me is the father of the defendant respondent. The property in dispute between them is a part of a fixed rate tenancy. The father brought a suit; in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the son on grounds specified in Section 50 of the Tenancy Act. The son in reply pleaded that he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family, and that that family was the owner of the rights in the land and that he was not his father's sub-tenant. I may note here that the father is the usufructuary mortgagee' of the fixed rate tenure and not the original owner. The Court of first instance, that is, of the Assistant Collector, decided in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the ejectment. The defendant filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has some here in second appeal. The first point taken before me is that the lower Appellate Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Ram Nath Vs. Pandit Habya Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All207; 57Ind.Cas.203
1. The question in these appeals is whether the certificates for the Pleader's fees were tendered to the officer of the Court within the time prescribed by the General Rules (Civil) of 1911 for subordinate Courts.2. The date fixed for the commencement of the hearing of the Suit No. 62 of 1918 (Original Suit No. 70 of 1916) was November 24th 1916.3. On November 17th an application was made that Suit No. 103 of 1916 (afterwards First Appeal No. 362 of 1917) should be put up with No. 70 of 1916 and decided at the same time, as the two actions covered the same ground. No order was made on the 17th but the matter was ordered to be put up on the 24th of November, the day which had been fixed for the hearing. On that day an order was made that the two cases should be put up on January 2nd 1917 and the witnesses who were in attendance went away without giving evidence. On January 2nd 1917 the cases were not reached and it was not until the 11th of April 1917 that the hearing actually commenced...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. Hub Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All542
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. The question in these appeals is whether the certificates for the pleader's fees wore tendered to the officer of the court within the time prescribed by the General Rules (Civil) of 1911 for Subordinate Courts.2. The date fixed for the commencement of the hearing of the suit No. 62 of 1918 (Original Suit No. 70 of 1916) was the 24th of November, 1916.3. On the 17th of November, an application was made that suit No. 103 of 1916 (afterwards First Appeal No. 362 of 1917) should the put up with No. 70 of 1916 and decided at the same time, as the two actions covered the same ground. No order was made on the 17th but the matter was ordered to be put up on the 24th of November, the day which had been fixed for the hearing. On that day an order was made that the two cases should be put up on the 2nd of January, 1917, and the witness who were in attendance went away without giving evidence. On the 2nd of January, 1917, the cases were not reached and it was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »