Allahabad Court July 1921 Judgments
Har Prasad Vs. Ram Chandar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All174; (1922)ILR44All37
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts of this case are these: Two brothers, Jhamman and Dhani Ram, made a usufructuary mortgage of two-thirds of certain zamindari property is favour of Har Prasad on the 28th of January, 1880, for a sum of Rs. 332. Under that mortgage the mortgagee obtained possession and got mutation of names in his favour. Subsequently Jhamman executed a document in favour of the same mortgagee, Har Prasad, by which he borrowed Rs. 50, with interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per mensem, and the contention is that this document created a usufructuary mortgage and placed on the property a further burden for the payment of the money secured by it. That is the question we have to consider in the present case. Jhamman sold a part of his share in the property to the defendant Ram Chandar. The heirs of Dhani Ram also sold part of Dhani Ram's share to the same defendant and to defendants nos. 4 and 5. The defendants last mentioned have not appeared and they have not contest...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Yakub and anr. Vs. Kanhai Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All157; (1922)ILR44All83
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a house sold by a Hindu vendor. The claim was based on an alleged custom embodying the rules of Muhammadan law. The plaintiffs are shafi khalit as well as shafi-jar of the vendor; and the vendees are shafi khalit. Thus the plaintiffs and the vendees both come in the second class, and the plaintiffs also come in the third class of pre-emptors. The court of first instance framed seven issues, but dismissed the claim on the sole ground that both the plaintiffs and the vendees being of equal status the suit was not maintainable. The lower appellate court, relying on the case of Amir Hasan v. Rahim Bakhsh (1897) I.L.R. 19 All. 466, was of opinion that that ground was insufficient for the dismissal of the whole suit, and remanded the case for disposal of the other issues. The defendants have come up in appeal to this Court and challenge the finding of the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs ha...
Tag this Judgment!Har Pershad Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.750
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The fasts of this case are these: Two brothers, Jhamman and Dhani Ram, made a usufructuary mortgage of two-thirds of certain Zemmdari property id favour of Har Pershad on the 28th of January 1880 for a sum of Rs. 332. Under that mortgage the mortgagee obtained possession and got mutation of names in his favour. Subsequently Jhamman executed a document in favour of the same mortgagee, Har Pershad, by which he borrowed Rs. 50, with interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per mensem, and the contention is that this document treated a usufructuary mortgage and placed on the, property a further harden for the payment of the money secured by it. That is the Question we have to consider in the present sate. Jhamman sold a part of his share in the property to the defendant Ram Chander. The, heirs of Dhani Ram also sold part of Dhani Ram's share to the same defendant and to defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The defendants last mentioned have not appeared and they have not contested the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Muhammad Yakub and anr. Vs. Lala Kanhai Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.673
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a house sold by a Hindu vendor. The claim was based on an. alleged custom embodying the rules of Muhammadan Law. The plaintiffs are shafi khalit as well shafi jar of the vendor : and the vendees are shafi khalit. Thus the plaintiffs and the vendees both some in the second class, and the plaintiffs also come in the third class of pre-emptors. The Court of first instance framed seven issues, but dismissed the claim on the sole ground that both the laintiffs and the vendees being of equal status, the suit was not maintainable. The lower Appellate Court, relying on the case of Amir Hasan v. Rahim Bakhsh 19 A. 466 : A.W.N. (1897) 118 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 300, was of opinion that that ground was insufficient for the dismissal of the whole suit, and remanded the case for disposal of the other issues. The defendants have come up in appeal to this Court and challenge the finding of the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Yad Ram and anr. Vs. Baldeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.418
Stuart, J.1. This appeal refers to a mortgage of occupancy rights in a holding made before Local Act II of 1901 come into force. The mortgage of occupancy rights was a legal mortgage. The mortgagor has subsequently relinquished his rights in favour of his Zemindar for a cash consideration. The resignation coupled with the cash comideration amounted to a transfer of the right to redeem to the Zemindar. The first plea taken in the grounds of appeal that there was no effective transfer to the plaintiff respondent fails. The plaintiff respondent had a right to redeem. The second plea taken in the grounds of appeal fails in view of the decision of the Fall Bench ruling in Raghunandan Rai v. Raghunandan Pande 61 Ind. Cas. 812 : 19 A.L.J. 573 : 43 A. 638. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs, which will include in this Court fees on the higher scale....
Tag this Judgment!Rup NaraIn Alias Rupai Pathak Vs. Partap Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.491
Stuart, J.1. The only two points taken in appeal are the two points taken in the Court below, that the appellants had been declared to be the tenants of the plots in question by the Revenue Court and that the appellants having filed a suit in the Revenue Court, the lower Courts should have awaited the decision of that Court even although the suit was filed more than three months after the order was given.2. With-regard to the first point, there was no judicial decision that the defendants were tenants. There was a remark of the Assist ant Record Officer under the provisions of Section 39, Local Act III of 1901, that they were tenants of II years' standing', but this was not an adjudication. It had no legal effect to establish that the appellants actually were tenants.3. With regard to the second point I can only read Section 202, Local Act II of 1901, as showing that when a defendant as here, has been ordered in writing to institute within three months a suit in the Revenue Court for t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Pargash Ojha and ors. Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All19
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother Tudball and I fully agree with it. There is nothing which I may profitably add without repeating what he has said.2. Having regard to the recent pronouncements of their Lordships of the Privy Council which my learned colleague has quoted at length, it must be held that a suit by a reversioner for setting aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession is brought by him in a representative capacity, that is, as representing the whole body of reversioners, for the protection of the estate. A decree in such a suit is, there fore, binding, not only between the reversioner who brought the suit and the transferee, but also as between the whole body of reversioners on the one hand and the transferee or his representative in title on the other. This is so, not because one reversioner must in that case be deemed to claim through another, but because the reversioner who sues represents th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Subhag Singh and ors. Vs. Dip NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All158; (1922)ILR44All74; 64Ind.Cas.438
Lindsay and Stuart, JJ.1. This case has been referred to a Bench of two Judges for the purpose of having it decided whether or not the suit brought by the plaintiffs was maintainable in the Civil Court. The suit was a suit for possession of 4 bighas odd of land and there was coupled with the claim for possession a claim for damages by way of mesne profits.2. This suit was instituted in the year 1916.3. It is admitted that at the time the suit was put into the Civil Court there was pending a partition between the parties which was being carried out under the provisions of chapter VII of the Land Revenue Act. It is also an admitted fact that the question of proprietary title which was set up in the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was not set up in the partition court. The question, therefore, is whether in these circumstances the Civil Court was competent to entertain the suit for possession which was based upon the claim of proprietary title.4. In the referring order attentio...
Tag this Judgment!Shikri Prasad Vs. Aziz Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All71
Walsh and Wallach, JJ.1. This order cannot stand. The learned Judge has totally misconceived the position. The original application was by the insolvent complaining under the old Act, which is now repealed, against an act of the receiver, The act of the receiver was an act attaching some very valuable property which the receiver in a very clear, closely reasoned, and strong report has come to the conclusion had been sold by the insolvent some three years before the insolvency, merely with intent to defraud and delay his creditors, or, as the receiver says, to hoodwink his creditors and save the property. The District Judge has held, rightly, that it does not come within any of the express provisions of the insolvency law, and he has gone on to hold, erroneously, that a transaction cannot be attacked, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or under general provisions of the law, in the Insolvency Court. Here he is wrong. The Insolvency Court has to administer the law under...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Shikri Prasad Vs. Hafiz Aziz Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All196; 63Ind.Cas.601
1. This order cannot stand. The learned Judge has totally misconceived the position. The original application wag by the insolvent complaining, under the old Act which is now repealed against an Act of the Receiver. The act of the Receiver was an Act attaching some Very valuable property which the Receiver in a very clear closely reasoned, was strong report has come to the conclusion had been sold by the insolvent soma three years before the insolvency merely with intent to defraud and delay his creditors, or, as the Receiver says, to hood wink his creditors and save the property, The District Judge has held rightly that it does not some within any of the express provisions of the Insolvensly law and he has gone onto hold erroneously that a transaction cannot be attacked under the provisions of the Transfer of Properly Act or under the general provisions of the law in the Insolvency Court. Here he is wrong. The Insolvency Court has to administer the law under its own procedure and to d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »