Allahabad Court November 1921 Judgments
Shib Kumar and ors. Vs. Lala Sheo Ghulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.932
1. This first appeal from order comes before us under the following circumstances. On objection taken by the judgment debtors a certain sale was set side. The Court, however, for reasons given, saw fit to order that the judgment-debtors should not merely bear their own costs of that objection, but should also pay the costs of the other side. The judgment-debtors have submitted to the order in so far as it directed them to bear their own costs of the proceeding. They have no quarrel with the order directing the sale to be set aside, which was indeed passed at their instance. They appeal against that part of the order which directed them to pay the costs of the other side. An objection is taken that no appeal lies. In Balkissen Duss v. Luchmeeput Singh 8 C. 91 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 59 the principle was broadly laid down that, if an order is itself appealable, an appeal will lie from that part of the order which relates to costs. This decision has been followed in Moshingan v. Mozari Sajad...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal and anr. Vs. Hukam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All198
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The only point raised in this Second Appeal is whether the mortgagee is entitled to interest at the stipulated rate up to the date of suit, or whether, a deposit having been made in court in accordance with Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, interest ceased from that date. The mortgage in suit was executed on the 21st day of August, 1906, for a sum of Rs. 500 and it was agreed that compound interest should be paid at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem with yearly rests. On the 31st day of October, 1909, a sum of money was deposited in court by the mortgagor under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. Notice was served on the mortgagee and he appeared in court and refused to accept the amount deposited. Some six months afterwards the mortgagor withdrew the amount which he had deposited in court. This suit was brought on the 12th day of August, 1918, claiming payment for the principal and interest at the stipulated rate up to the date of suit. The...
Tag this Judgment!Asharfi Lal Vs. the Municipal Board of Agra and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All202
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand which was clearly rightly made, although, we think, made on wrong grounds. The matter raises a question of such importance, possibly to the plaintiff himself but certainly to the general public that it is desirable to make the law clear. It has not yet been tried and we refrain from expressing any opinion about the merits. We would merely say this by way of preface that, in our opinion, the law in India upon the questions raised is the same as the law in England, and the Common Law of England provides that if any duly qualified citizen, or burgher, or person entitled to be upon the electoral roll of any constituency is omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote, and so as to give the returning officer an adequate ground for refusing him the right to vote on election day when the matter has to be decided summarily, and that refusal or omission from the roll, as the case may be, turns out on investigation to be w...
Tag this Judgment!Bithal Das and ors. Vs. Kamal Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All200
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff in the suit claimed a large sum, exceeding Rs. 10,000, on the basis of a mortgage. This mortgage was denied by the defendant, the present applicant. The court of first instance decided against him and decreed the claim in full. He appealed to this Court and this Court affirmed the decision of the court below upon the question of the fact and the validity of the mortgage. This Court, however, reduced the rate of interest awarded against the appellant by the court of first instance. The result was that this Court modified the decree of the court of first instance to the extent of about Rs. 300. But that modification, so far from being prejudicial to the interest of the present applicant, was in his favour. On the ground of this modification he seeks to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the question of the genuineness of the mortgage and it is contend...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Board Vs. Asharfi Lal Plaintiff and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.984
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand which was clearly rightly made although we think made on wrong grounds. The matter raises a question of such importance, possibly to the plaintiff himself but certainly to the general public, that it is desirable to make the law clear, It has not yet been tried and we refrain from expressing any opinion about the merits. We would merely fay this by way of preface, that, in our opinion, the law in India upon the questions raised is the same as the law in England, and the Common Law of England provides that if any duly qualified citizen, or burgher, or person entitled to be upon the electoral roll of any constituency is omitted from such roll so as to be deprived of his right to vote, and so an to give the Returning Officer an adequate ground for refusing him the right to vote on election day when the matter has to be decided summarily, and that refusal or omission from the roll, as the case may be, turns out on investigation to be wr...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kamal Nath and ors. Vs. Babu Bithal Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All89; 64Ind.Cas.916
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff in the suit claimed a large sum exceeding Rs. 10,000 on the basis of a mortgage. This mortgage was denied by the defendant, the present applicant. The Court of first instance decided against him and decreed the claim in full. He appealed to this Court, and this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below upon the question of the fact and the validity of the mortgage. This Court, however, reduced the rate of interest awarded against the appellant by the Court of first instance. The result was that this Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance to the extent of about Rs. 300 But that modification, so far from being prejudicial to the interest of the present applicant, was in his favour. On the ground of this modification he seeks to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the question of the genuineness of the mortgage, and it is contended on his behalf that, as this Court did not affirm ...
Tag this Judgment!Hukam Singh Vs. Babu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.971
1. The only point raised in this second appeal is whether the mortgagee is entitled to interest at the stipulated rate up to the date of suit or whether a deposit having been made in Court in accordance with Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, interest ceased from that date. The mortgage in suit was executed on the 21st of August 1906 for a sum of Rs. 500, and it was agreed that compound interest should be paid at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent. per mensem with yearly rests. On the 31st of October 1909 a sum of money was deposited in Court by the mortgagor under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, Notice was served on the mortgagee, and he appeared in Court and refused to accept the amount deposited. Some six months afterwards (he mortgagor withdrew the amount which he had deposited in Court. This suit was brought on the 12th of August 1918, claiming payment for the principal and interest at the stipulated rate up to the date of suit. The main defense was that the whole amount of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhup Kunwar and anr. Vs. Balbir Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All190
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh in a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants to enforce a mortgage executed on the 12th day of October, 1904, in favour of one Bishan Singh.2. Bishan Singh has died and his property has descended to various members of his family. The first plaintiff, Musammat Bhup Kunwar, is a grand-daughter of Bishan Singh and the second plaintiff, Debi Singh, is Bishan Singh's grandson. It appears that since the death of Bishan Singh his property has been divided among the members of the family under an arbitration award and it was stated in the plaint that a definite share of this mortgage debt had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The defendants second party in the suit are the other members of Bishan Singh's family to whom shares also have been allotted in this particular debt. They were joined as defendants be cause they hud failed to join as plaintiffs.3. The contesting defendants in the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Jangpal Singh and anr. Vs. Raja Kushalpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.942
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Aligarh refusing to restore a case which had been dismissed by the Special Judge appointed by this Court to try the case, as he said, for default, it not being quite clear whether he meant to dismiss it under one or other of the 2nd or 3rd rules of Order XVII. The case which was undoubtedly presented before us with great ability, has a very long history and gives rise to a great many considerations, and in some respects the members of the Court hearing the appeal do not regard the questions which have come up for discussion precisely in the same light, but we have come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed. It is never satisfactory to dismiss a suit without trial, but, speaking for myself, I agree substantially with every word of the very long and elaborate order passed by Mr. Kisch, the District Judge, in March 1920, refusing to restore the case, the order now under appeal. I have followed as closely as...
Tag this Judgment!Bhup Kuar and anr. Vs. Balbir Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All342; 64Ind.Cas.885
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal against-a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh in a suit brought, by the plaintiffs-appellants to enforce a mortgage executed on the 12th of October 1904, in favour of one Bishen Singh. 2. Bichen Singh has died and his property has descended to various members of his family. The first plaintiff, Muiammiit Bkii^ Kunwar, is a granddaughter of Bishen Singh and the second plaintiff, Debi Singh, is Bishen Singh's grandson. It appears that since the death of Bichen Singh his property has been divided among the members of the family under an arbitration award, and it was stated in the plaint that a definite share of this mortgage debt had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The defendants second party in the suit are the other members of Bishen Singh's family to whom shares also have been allotted in this particular debt. They were joined as defendants because they had failed to join as plaintiffs.3. The contesting defendants in the suit were Balbir Sahai, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »