Allahabad Court January 1921 Judgments
Srimati Pramila Devi Vs. Chandra Shekhar Chatterji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All450
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The court below had to decide about the granting of a succession certificate for the collection of certain debts due to a decease Bengali Brahmin, Babu Karunamoy Banerji. The rival applicants were a widowed daughter with no children and two sons by another daughter previously deceased. The learned District Judge has given preference to the sons. He had only to determine prima facie which of the parties before him had a preferential claim. We think his decision was clearly right. It has been contended before us, as it was in the court below, that the daughter who was a childless widow should not be postponed to the sons of the other daughter in the matter of inheritance, because under the provisions of the Hindu Widows' Re-marriage Act, No. XV of 1856, there was always the possibility of her flurrying again. In support of this, one case in the Calcutta High Court has been laid before us, as it was before the court below. It is that of Sreemutty Bimola v. Dangoo ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhry Munna Singh Vs. Kuar Digbijay Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.758
Walsh, J.1. The question for determination in the Court below was, whether certain money due from the appellant Munna Singh under the decree of a Bent Court, was or was not a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 6(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. 111. of 1907, or Section 10(1)(a) of the present Act, No. V of 1920, The learned Additional Judge, with out giving any reasons, has said that he does not think that a decree passed by a Rent Court can be considered as a 'debt' for the purposes of the Insolvency Ant. We cannot conceive of any definition of the word debt which would exclude the decree in question from the operation of the provisions of the Provincial Act above referred to. The respondent apparently relies on Section 193 of the Local Tenancy Act, No. II of KOI, read with Section 56(2), the repealing section of the Provincial Insolvency Act, No. III of 1907. A question might conceivably arise, as, for instance upon an application by the holder of the Bent Court (Jeorce for...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Pramila Devi Vs. Chander Shekhar Chatterji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.777
1. The Court below had to decide about the granting of a succession certificate for the collection of certain debts due to a deceased Bengali Brahmio, Babu Karnoamoy Banerji. The rival applicants were a widowed daughter with no children and two sons by another daughter previously deceased. The learned District Judge has given preference to the sons. He had only to determine prirna facie which of the parties before him had a preferential claim. We think his decision was clearly right. It has been son-tended before us, as it was in the Court below, that the daughter, who was a child-lass widow, should not be postponed to the sons of the other daughter in the matter of inheritance, because, under the provisions of the Hindu Widow's Re-marriage Act, XV of 1856, there wag always the possibility of her marrying again. In support of this, one case in the Calcutta High Court has been laid before us, as it was before the Court below. It is that of Sreemutty Rimola v. Dangoo Kansaree 19 W.R. 189...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Lal Vs. Birjbhukan Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.774
1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit brought by the plaintiff to have a certain order passed under Order XXI, Rule VI set aside. It appears that a male was held in execution of a decree and Hari Ram, the father of the plaintiff respondent, bid a very large sure, over Rs. 3,000, for the property, He deposited a one-fourth share bat did not make good the balance. The sale was set aside and the property was re-sold when it fetched about Rs. 225. It appears that Hari Ram had made a vary bad bargain as there were some very heavy mortgages upon the estate. The judgment-debtor in that case gold whatsoever right he might have had to the present defendant-appellant who applied to the Court and asked for recovery of the deficiency from Hari Ram, Notice was issued to Hari Ram. He Bled objections and then died. Brij Bhukan Saran, the present plaintiff respondent, was made a party in his place and an order was passed under which the amount of deficiency was directed to be recovered from him by...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhri Sheo Bakhsh and ors. Vs. Chaudhri Mukhtar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.894
1. This is a defendants-vendees' appeal arising out of a suit for pre emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the mahal, the defendants-vendees are not. The plaintiff alleged a custom, according to which he claimed to be entitled to pre-emption as against the defendants, The defendants pleaded, first of all, that there was no custom and, secondly, even taking it that there was a custom, as stated in the wajib-ul-arz and put forward by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had no right of pre eruption whatsoever thereunder. The Courts below have held that the custom established by the plaintiff gives him a right of pre-emption. The defendants appeal.1. For the purposes of this decision we assume that there is some custom of pre-emption in the village. The question is whether the plaintiff by his evidence has shown that that custom is such as to give him a right of preemption. Two wajib-ul-arz were produced to establish the custom. The wajib-ul-arz of the Settlement of Mohar Singh set forth that...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jeoni Vs. Kalloo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All105(1); 60Ind.Cas.837
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: A Nawab gave a lease of a certain Mahal to two person, the present plaintiff, Msammat Jeoni, and one Mubarak Ali. Mubarak Ali died some time ago leaving a son and a widow, Musammat Jannat, The son has since died and his widow, Jannat, is alive. The plaintiff as a lessee brought r suit for recovery of the 'ent for certain year from Kallu, a tenant. The defense pleaded by Kallu was that he had all along paid the rent to Mubarak Ali during his lifetime and since his death Musammat Jannat has been collecting rent from the defendant up to this day this defendant has hivd no concern with Musammat Jeoni. It will appear from the statement of defence above referred to that the defendant nowhere pleaded that he had paid the rent in good faith to Musammat Jannat. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit and the dismissal has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. After be had filed his defense, the defendant tenant paid off...
Tag this Judgment!Param Hansman Tewari and anr. Vs. Dasrathman Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All128; 60Ind.Cas.770
1. This suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Deoria. The plaintiffs claimed, between them, to. be the holders of the proprietary rights in respect of a particular plot of land 16 his was in area. They said that this land had never been brought under cultivation, but grew from year to year a crop of tall grass known locally as krar. They alleged that the defendants bad the use of this plot of land for many years by grazing their tattle over it, and outing the tall grass if they saw fit to do so. They claimed that the defendants enjoyment of this land gave them no status higher than that of a licensee, although they admitted that rent was annually paid by the defend ants. Bringing the suit, therefore, in the civil Court, they claimed a decree for possession and arrears of rent for three years at the rate of Rs. 5 a year. The defendants pleaded that the suit as brought was not cognizable by the Civil Court, but should have been brought as a suit for the ejectment of a non occupa...
Tag this Judgment!Buddhoo Lal and anr. Vs. Mewa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All1; 63Ind.Cas.15
Rafique, J.1. The Reference to the Fall Bench raises the question of the revisional powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It appears that the plaintiff resides and carries on business as a sloth merchant in Etawah, while the defendants are commission agents who live and carry on business at Cawnpore. A dispute arose between them in connection with the orders given by the plaintiff for the purchase of cloth. The plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Etawah for the recovery of a certain amount by way of damages. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the Court at Etawah had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which should have been filed in tin Civil Court at Cawnporer. The learned Munsif, instead of trying all the issues raised in the case, proceeded to receive evidence and hear arguments on the question of jurisdiction only, He disposed of the issue of jurisdiction be his order dated die 27th of August 1919 against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Govindi Vs. Sahib Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All440
Tudball and Lindsay, JJ.1. Second Appeals Nos. 649 and 650 of 1918 are between the same parties and arise out of the same suit. On the 18th of November, 1891, one Har Narain executed a mortgage deed for a sum of Ra. 900 in favour of three persons, Sahib Ram and his brother Ajai Ram and, their cousin Har Prasad, On the 30fch of July, 1910, Sahib Ram and Ajai Ram brought a suit for sale against the mortgagor on the basis of the deed. At that time Har Prasad was dead. He left a widow Govindi and there was one Brij Narain, the son of Ajai Ram, on whose behalf a claim was put forward by Sahib Ram that he was the adopted son of Har Prasad. Therefore, he and Musammat Govinii were made pro formed defendants to the suit. She applied to be made a plaintiff claiming to be the heir of Har Prasad. Sahib Ram took no exception to this application, in fact, he agreed on the condition that she would pay 'half' the costs of the suit. She agreed to do this and was made a plaintiff. An application was als...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Prasad and anr. Vs. Pearey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All220; 62Ind.Cas.719
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The only point raised before me is whether the decree-holders should in execution of their decree proceed against the applicants by an application to the Execution Department, What happened was that the decree-holders put in an application for execution and in execution of the decree certain moveables belonging to the judgment-debtors were attached. They were put in the custody of the petitioners by the Amin, and they executed a security bond on plain paper agreeing to produce the moveables when the Court demanded them or to pay the price thereof. The Amin, who was in charge of the execution proceedings, thereupon left the property with them and filed the agreement executed by them in Court. When the petitioners were asked to produce the property, they stated their inability to do so on the ground that one Khalil, an agent of the judgment-debtors, had taken it away. The applicants, having given an express undertaking to the effect that they would produce the moveable...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »