Allahabad Court March 1921 Judgments
Hargu Lal and Pahladi Lal Vs. Purshottam Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All513
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of this Court dismissing an appeal preferred by the applicant under the following circumstances. A decree was passed upon a mortgage for the sale of the mortgaged property. The present applicant is the purchaser of a part of that property. He preferred objections to the execution of the decree, but those objections were overruled by the Subordinate Judge and he ordered the mortgaged property to be sold in pursuance of the decree. The 20th of September, 1920, was fixed for the sale. On the 19th of that month an application was made to this Court to stay the sale. At that time no appeal from the decision of the court below in regard to the objections preferred by the present applicant had been filed. It was during the long vacation of this Court, when ordinarily appeals are not received, that the application was made to the court below to set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramraj Singh Vs. Rabi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.140
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an attempt by the decree-holder auction purchaser to have the order of the Court below set aside upon a technical ground. The property of the judgment-debtor, which was a fixed rate holding, was sold by auction on the 20th of August 1919. The case was to have been put up on the 20th of September 1919. On the 18th of that month the judgment-debtor filed an application, which is usually sailed a tender, for the deposit of the decretal amount and also of the five per cent, penalty which is payable under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for having an auction sale set aside. Manifestly the object of that deposit was to have the sale set aside. No separate application was filed. On the 20th of September 1919 the Court fixed the 15th of November 1919 for the disposal of the objections of the auction-purchaser. Those objections were actually filed on the 27th of October 1919. In the petition of objection it was distinctly stated that the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhrani Vs. Gobind Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All515
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Walsh, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. As we are differing from the learned Judge of this Court who delivered a very full judgment we will just state our reasons. In our view this question is really a question of fact. The only questions which in second appeal the High Court can consider are whether having regard to the established principles the learned Judge of the lower appellate court has rightly directed himself, and whether there is evidence to support the finding of fact at which he has arrived. The principles of law applicable to this case are very clearly laid down in a case heard before Mr. Justice Mookerjee in Khub Lal Singh v. Ajodhya Misser (1915) I.L.R. 43 Calc. 574 where he has pointed out that this being a question purely of Hindu law care should be taken in coming to a decision to prevent English Judges being warped by impressions made upon their minds in consequence of the nature of English decisions to which they are accustomed. We enti...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram Tiwari Vs. Katwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All547
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The question to be determined in this case is whether an occupancy holding the sale of which has been ordered in the decree upon a mortgage in which the occupancy holding was hypothecated can be sold in execution of that decree and whether it is open to the judgment-debtors to raise the objection in execution that the property is not liable to sale by reason of the provisions of Section 20 of the Agra Tenancy Act. On the 17th of May, 1909, a mortgage was made by four persons of a house, a nim tree and certain lands which are admittedly lands which formed the occupancy holding of the mortgagors. In fact in the mortgage deed the lands are described as forming the occupancy holding of the persons who executed that document. A suit was brought on the basis of the mortgage and an ex parte decree was passed on the 8th of June, 1914. This decree was made final on the 19th of July, 1917. The plaintiff decree-holder caused the house and the tree to be sold and for t...
Tag this Judgment!Hanwant Singh Vs. Jang Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All520
Pramada Charan Banerji, Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house, and the question to be determined is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The house in question was sold by auction in execution of a decree against the first four defendants and the sale was confirmed on the 13th of January, 1903. Delivery of possession was obtained on the 20th of November, 1903. If limitation be computed from that date the suit is just within Lime, but if the plaintiff cannot avail himself of the delivery of possession made on the 20th of November, 1903, as giving him a fresh start for the computation of limitation, the claim is admittedly time-barred. It was alleged in the court of first instance by the plaintiff that he got actual possession of the premises which he had purchased at auction, that the judgment-debtors had gone out of the house, but that he had subsequently permitted them to remain in the house and that the judgment-debtors and t...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Upadhya and ors. Vs. Musammat Lakhrani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All109; 63Ind.Cas.221
1. This appeal must be allowed. As we are differing from the learned Judge of this Court who delivered a very full judgment, we will just state our reasons. In our view this question is really a question of fast. The only questions which in second appeal the High Court can consider are whether having regard to the established principles the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has rightly directed himself, and whether there is evidence lo support the finding of fast at which he has arrived. The principles of law applicable to this case are very clearly laid down in a case heard before Mr. Justice Mookerji in Khub Lal Singh v. Ajodhya Misser 31 Ind. Cas. 433 : 43 C. 574 : 22 C.L.J. 345, where he has pointed out that this being a question purely of Hindu Law, care should be taken in coming to a decision to prevent English Judges being warped by impressions made upon their minds in consequence of the nature of English decisions to which they are accustomed. We entirely agree with th...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Jang Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Thakur Hanwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All9; 63Ind.Cas.212
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house, and the question to be determined is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The house in question was sold by auction in execution of a decree against, the first four defendants and the sale was confirmed on the 13th of January 1903. Delivery of possession was obtained on the 20th of November 1903. If limitation be computed from that date the suit is just within time, but if the plaintiff cannot avail himself of the delivery of possession made on the 20th of November 1903, as giving him a fresh start for the computation of limitation, the claim is admittedly time-barred. It was alleged in the Courts of first instance by the plaintiff that he got actual possession of the premises which be had purchased at auction, that the judgment debtors had gone out of the house but that he had subsequently permitted them to remain in the house and that the judgment-debtors and their eons had refused to vacate the house. This statement...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar Vs. Chaudhry Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.841
1. Nobody appearing on the other side, it is clearly shown that there has been a mistake, namely, that in the judgment of the 7th of April 1919, credit has not been given for the sum of Re, 1,400, which was admittedly left with the venices to discharge a certain debt whish had not been discharged. An application for review was made promptly on the 4th of June 1919 on behalf of the decree-holder. The un successful party filed an appeal in October 1919, It is suggested that this was not done bona fide bat with a view to defeating the decree-holder's application for review. Whether this is so or not, we think the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1, do not apply when the appeal is filed by the other side subsequent to the application for review.' There is an authority of this Court for that in the case of Partap Singh v. jaswant Singh 52 Ind. Cas. 642 : 17 A.L.J. 1021 : 42 A. 79. In any event it is not a case in whish it would either be right or reasonable to be technical. The other side is...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Musammat Katori
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.484
Ryves, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against seven defendants for sale on a mortgage. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 7, namely, Pitam and Musammat Katori, pretended to have acquired under a partition a grove which was included in the mortgage, but that, as a matter of fact, they had no concern with any of the mortgaged property and that, therefore, they were joined as defendants merely to avoid future complications. It appears that defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were duly served with notice but did not appear at the date fixed for the bearing. Defendants Nos. 6 and 7 also were absent. The ordinary decree in accordance with Order XXXIV, Rule 4, was drawn up. No distinction in that decree was made in any of the defendants. Subsequently, Pitam and Musammat Katori applied to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that they had not been duly served with notice. The decree--holder at once applied to the Court s...
Tag this Judgment!Nazir Ahmad Khan and anr. Vs. Bashir Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All544
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The only point pressed in the court below was the question of law which has been also raised before us. On the 10th of February, 1905, the plaintiffs respondents' predecessor in title sold certain zamindari to the defendant appellant for the sum of Rs. 799; Rs. 300 were paid in cash and in respect to Rs. 499 the sale deed set out that it would in certain circumstances be not paid by the vendee to the vendor. Three days afterwards, i.e. on the 13th of February, 1905, the vendee executed a simple agreement under which he agreed to pay Rs. 499, the balance of the purchase money, in monthly instalments of Rs. 50 each, and further agreed that if two instalments in succession remained unpaid the vendor should be entitled to recover the whole at once.2. The present suit was brought on the 10th of February, 1917, to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase money by sale of the property sold, in other words, to enforce the charge which is given to a vendor un...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »