Allahabad Court February 1921 Judgments
Mahfuz Hasan Vs. Mazhar Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.273
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal in an execution matter raising a short but interesting point of law. The applicant or decree-holder had recovered judgment in a suit for contribution against several co-mortgagors including the defendant, the present-appellant, Mahfuz Hasan, No. 12 in the application for execution and No. 15 in the array of defendants in the original suit, and he applied in the Execution Court for attachment or sale of certain property, mentioned in column 10 of the application, in discharge of the liability which had been declared against the defendants in the suit, and included in the details under column 10 was Item No. 3 described in the following words:--'Rs. 125 annual amount of pension under political treaty, which is realised from the Treasury of District Moradabad and which was granted under the order of the Board of Revenue, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, forming part of Rs. 206 8-11.' The statement of the figures appears to be incorrect. The amount given is ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhlal Rai and anr. Vs. Babu Hiranand Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All154; 62Ind.Cas.884
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. On the 8th of January 1914, the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 gave a perpetual lease to the present defendants-appellants before as, of the proprietary rights in an area of 23 bighas odd. Under the lease a nazrana of Rs. 12,999-13-6 was paid and an annual rent of Rs. 23 fixed. In the year 1915, a co-sharer (other than the present plaintiff-respondent) brought a pre-emption suit, which was dismissed both by the Court of first instance and by this Court on appeal. The transferee is a co-sharer in the mahal. The pre-emptor in the first suit was also a so sharer in the same mahal but apparently judging from the judgment of this Court, dated the 17th of May 1917, the transferor, the transferee and the pre emptor were all co-sharers in different thoks and, therefore, under the custom alleged, this Court held that the plaintiff had no right of pre emption as against the transferee. There was a question raised in that case as to whether or not the...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi Jan Vs. Waris Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All173(1); (1921)ILR43All493
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Bareilly rejecting the application of the appellant Musammat Shadi Jan for a certificate under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889).2. The facts of the case are as follows:Ahmadi Begam, the daughter of Musammat Shadl Jan, was the wife of one Raza Ali, and died on the 10th of May, 1914.3. She left as heirs her mother, six sons, two daughters and her husband.4. It is admitted that the dower debt which Raza Ali owed his wife at the time of her death amounted to Rs. 72,000.5. The wife's heirs were, therefore, entitled to specific shares of this debt in accordance with the Muhammadan law of Inheritance, and the share of the wife's mother was 1/6th. The result was that Musammat Shadi Jan had a good claim against Raza Ali for Rs. 12,000 and to that extent Raza Ali became the debtor of Musammat Shadi Jan.6. On the 23rd of October, 1914, Raza Ali himself died leaving as heirs his six sons, his two dau...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Vs. Shiam Sunder Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All408; 63Ind.Cas.423
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The sole point argued before us at present in this appeal in whether the lower Court was or was not justified in taking additional evidence after the case had been argued before it and a date fixed for judgment. No reasons are recorded by the Judge for admitting such evidence except what he says in the judgment. It appears from a perusal of the record that the case was argued on the 23rd of August 1918 and the 30th of August was fixed for delivery of judgment. For some reason or other the learned Judge of the Court below examined the plaintiff on the 27th of August, for which we see no justification. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or another in the Court below. There is admittedly no application on the record to show that any of the parties wanted to produce additional evidence. Under these circumstances we think that the deposition of the plaintiff dated the 27th of August 1918 should be deleted from the...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Tahal Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All104; 63Ind.Cas.477
1. It appears that on the 17th of July 1905 Bhagwan and Sumer, members of a joint Hindu family, executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The period fixed in the deed for redemption was ten years. Interest was to be payable annually and in the case of default in payment of interest for any year the mortgagee had the option of suing for the whole of the mortgage money. Although there was default in the payment of interest in the very first year after the mortgage, the plaintiff mortgagee brought his suit for sale after the expiry of the ten years. He claimed a relief both against the persons of the mortgagors and the mortgaged property. To this suit the plaintiff-appellant impleaded the other members of the family of the mortgagors. The lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the debt was taken for legitimate family purposes and it has, therefore, dismissed the suit for sale. As to the personal relief the learned Judge has arrived at the con...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Shadi Jan Vs. Syed Waris Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.1
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Bareilly rejecting the application of the appellant, Musammat Shadi Jan, for a certificate under Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889).2. The facts of the case are as follows:Ahmadi Bagam, the daughter of Musammat Shadi Jan, was the wife of one Raza Ali, and died on the 10th May 1914.2. She left as heirs her mother, six sons, two daughters and her husband.3. It is admitted that the dower debt which Raza Ali owed his wife at the time of her death amounted to Rs. 2,000.4. The wife's heirs were, therefore, entitled to specific shares of this debt in accordance with the Muhammadan Law of inheritance, and the share of the wife's mother was 1/6th. The result was that Musammat Shadi Jan had a good claim against Raza Ali for Rs. 12,000 and to that extent Raza Ali became the debtor of Musammat Shadi Jan.5. On the 23rd October 1914 Raza Ali himself died leaving as heirs his six sons, his two daughters a...
Tag this Judgment!Mohabbat Khan and anr. Vs. Agha Sultan Khan and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All489
Gokul Prasad and Lindsay, JJ.1. The principal question raised in this appeal is whether a purchaser at auction who has purchased certain property is entitled to dispute the validity of a mortgage which was notified in the sale proclamation prepared under Order XXI, Rule 66, of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. V of 1908). It appears that one Musammat Hingan Bibi was in possession of a certain house. As assigns from one Nurjahan Begam the plaintiffs sued Musammat Hingan for possession of the house, and on the 25th of January, 1917, they obtained a decree for possession of a 10 anna share oat of the 16 annas of the house. Costs were also decreed to them to the extent of about Rs. 80. It appears that the plaintiffs took out execution of the decree for costs and in execution thereof they applied for attachment and sale of the remaining 6 anna share of the house. Before, however, the order for attachment could be carried out Musammat Hingan Bibi made a usufructuary mortgage of the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!Agha Sultan Khan Vs. Mohabbat Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All79; 63Ind.Cas.395
1. The principal question raised in this appeal is whether a purchaser at auction who has purchased certain property is entitled to dispute the validity of a mortgage which was notified in the sale proclamation prepared under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908). It appears that one Musammat Hingan Bibi was in possession of a certain house. As assigns from one Noorjahan Begam), the plaintiffs sued Musammat Hingan for possession of the house and on the 25th of January 1917 they obtained a decree for possession of a ten anna share out of the 16 annas of the house. Costs were also decreed to them to the extent of about Rs. 80 it appears that the plaintiffs took out execution of the decree for costs and in execution thereof they applied for attachment and sale of the remaining Six anna share of the house. Before, however, the order for attachment could be carried out, Musammat Hingan Bibi made a usufruatuary mortgage of the whole house for Rs. 1,000 in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!Sanuman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All19; 63Ind.Cas.401
Stuart, J.1. This is an appeal by 28 persons against convictions and sentences by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. The facts are as follows:On the 4th of March 1920 two Inspector in the Excise Department in Gorakhpur, Babu Baleshwar Prasad and Babu Murli Dhar, went out on ekkas to search certain houses in a village a few miles from Gorakhpur, having received information that illicit liquor was being distilled. For excise peons followed them on foot; after an interval there same on foot another excise peon and four constbles. The party collected at a village called Gularia at about 2 p.m. Thence they went to the village Khutahan, where the search was to be made. They reached Khutahan about 3 P.M. In Khutahan they searched the houses of Sarju Kewat, Bisheshar Kewat, Mahabir Kewat, Manohar Kewat, Musammat Sonkali Kewat and Jagarnath Kewat, As far as I have been able to ascertain, Khutahan is a village in a forest tract or ex-forest tract in which the cultivators are almost entirel...
Tag this Judgment!Behari Lal Sahu and After His Death Baldeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Shaikh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.574
1. This was suit to enforce a mortgage dated the 3rd of November 1909 alleged to have been executed by one Muhammad Hasan and his sister, Musammat Tula Bibi. Muhammad Hasan filed a written statement in the Court below but did not appear at the trial. Musammat Tula Bibi denied everything relating to the execution of the band and the receipt of consideration for it. The amount secured by the mortgage-bond is Rs. 3,000 of which Rs. 1,500 is alleged to have been due by Musammat Tula Bibi upon an earlier bond of 1903, Rs. 1,000 is said to have been due by Muhammad Hasan, Rs. 50 was received for stamp paper and costs of registration and Rs. 450 was paid in cash at the time of registration of the mortgage. The Court below has made a decree against Muhammad Hasan but has exempted from the claim Musammat Tula Bibi and her share of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and the first Question we have to consider is, whether Musammat Tula Bibi executed the document. Two ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »