Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All262; (1922)ILR44All421
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts of this case are as follows. The plaintiffs executed on the 18th of September, 1903, a usufructuary mortgage for five years in favour of Kulanjan Singh and Sat Ram. The deed is not on the record and it is not clear what exactly was mortgaged. According to the plaintiffs, on the 10th of August, 1905, they executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 599 in favour of Mahabir Singh in which an eight anna zamindari share in five villages was hypothecated. The interest chargeable was Rs. 2 per mensem. On the 8th of October, 1908, the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgage of an eight anna two pie share in three villages which had been hypothecated in the mortgage of 1905 in favour of Kulanjan Singh alone. This mortgage was for Rs. 2,400 and for 15 years. The plaintiffs stated that under a contemporaneous oral agreement, when the mortgage of the 10th of August, 1905, was entered into, it was agreed between the parties that if the plaintiffs executed a usufr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All428
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The following facts are admitted. Dawan and Budhan Singh were brothers. Dawan died leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Khaira and two daughters, Musammats Kalwanta and Maktola. On his death, his widow's name was recorded against half the property that had originally belonged to Ranjit Singh, the father of the above mentioned brothers. Budhan had two wives, Musammats Palti and Samarkha, and by the latter a daughter Musammat Jagta, who was the mother of Raj Kumar Singh, plaintiff No. 1, and two other sons who are now dead, who were also plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs (who are all minors) brought this suit on the allegation that the two brothers Dawan and Budhan were joint, and that on the death of Dawan, Budhan succeeded to the whole property by right of survivorship, and that Musammat Khaira's (Dawan's widow's) name was recorded against half only for her consolation. After her death, and Budhan's death, the names of his widows were recorded against the ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 66Ind.Cas.131
1. The facts of this case are as follows. The plaintiffs executed, on the 18th of September 1906, a usufructuary mortgage for five years in favour of Kulanjan Singh and Sat Ham. The deed is not on the record and it is not clear what exactly was mortgaged. According to the plaintiffs, on the 10th of August 1905 they executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 599 in favour of Mahabir Singh in which an eight-anna Zamindari share in five villages was hypothecated. The interest chargeable was Rs. 2 per mensen On the 8th of October 1908 the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgage of an eight-anna two-pie share in three villages which had been hypothecated in the mortgage of 1905 in favour of Kulanjan Singh alone. This mortgage was for Rs. 2,400 and for 15 years. The plaintiffs stated that, under a contemporaneous oral agreement, when the mortgage of the 10th of August 1905 was entered into, it was agreed between the parties that if the plaintiffs executed a usufructuary mortgage subsequently, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All26; 66Ind.Cas.878
Stuart, J.1. Musammat Kirpa Devi filed three suits against Durga and others for possession of certain houses situated in Meerut city. She obtained decree for possession of the sites, the possession being conditional on her paying compensation to the judgment-debtors in respect of the materials of the houses. Appeals were Sled to the District Judge who upheld the decrees of the Trial Court, Appeals were filed to the High Court which upheld the decrees of the Courts below. Before the passing of the decrees of the High Court Kirpa Devi transferred the property in those suits to Shib Charan Das. She transferred the property by a sale-deed dated the 14th of June 1917. The High Court decrees were passed on the 18th of July 1917. It would have been open to Shib Charan Das to apply to the High Court to have his name substituted for that of the plaintiff but he did not do so and the final decrees of the 18th of July 1917 were passed in favour of Musammat, Kirpa Devi. Shib Charan Das then applie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All418
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:Inam-ullah, defendant No. 1, made a mortgage of a grove in favour of Manni Lal, defendant appellant, on the 1st of June, 1906. On the 6th of July, 1910, he made a second mortgage of the same grove in favour of Shamshad Ali who is now represented by the plaintiff respondent. In 1915 the first mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree for sale. To this suit the second mortgagee Shamshad Ali was not made a party and, therefore, his rights, whatever they wore, were not affected by this decree. On the 20th of January, 1916, the mortgaged property was sold in execution of the decree aforesaid and was purchased by Budhi Lal, defendant No. 3, and one of the appellants before us, and on the 1st of June, 1917, he obtained possession of the property. The plaintiff has now brought this suit for sale on the second mortgage and he has impleaded as defendants the original mortgagor, the holder of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All459
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This purports to be an application to set aside an order of abatement. It appears that one of the respondents died in March, 1921, and an application was put in by the learned vakil for the applicant after ninety days had expired. The learned vakil in the application stated that the appeal as against the deceased respondent had abated and he applied for an order under Order XXII, Rule 9(2). The matter came before a learned Judge of this Court who was of opinion that the application was premature inasmuch as there was no order of the Court declaring the appeal to have abated. As, however, a learned Judge of this Court in Lachmi Narain v. Muhammand Yusuf (1990) I.L.R. 42 All. 540, was of opinion that on the expiry of ninety days after the death of a respondent, if no application was made within ninety days to bring his representatives on to the records, the appeal automatically abated and it was not necessary that a format order should have been passed to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All462
Ryves, J.1. The essential facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this appeal, can be stated very shortly. The mortgagor, who is no longer interested, by a mortgage by conditional sale, dated the 20th of September, 1900, mortgaged his zamindari share in four villages to the defendants. Subsequently, on the 15th of July, 1903, he executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs of three small plots of sir land for Rs. 99-15-6, and, on the 8th of July, 1904, he executed two other usufructuary mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs of some other small plots of sir and khudkasht land for Rs. 71 and Rs. 75 respectively. The aggregate area of these plots was a little over 3 bighas, that is, something more than an acre. All these plots of land were situated within the boundary of the village of Ukraon, one of the four villages mortgaged to the defendants. These three usufructuary mortgages were all unregistered. The terms of all of them were similar. The mortgagees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All490; (1922)ILR44All636
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. In this case the appellant applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and asked that a time-barred appeal might be heard on the ground that there was 'sufficient cause' for his having failed to comply with the rules. When a second appeal is presented to this Court, there is no doubt that the copy of the first court's judgment and a copy of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court must be filed. The appellant waited until almost the last day for the admission of his appeal, and then, on the 2nd of May, 1921 filed the judgment and decree only of the lower appellate court. The last day of limitation expired on the 3rd of May, 1921. The appellant, having learnt that the appeal could not be admitted without the judgment of the first court, subsequently obtained it and then asked that time should be extended and the appeal admitted. It is stated that his failure to comply with the rules was due to the error of the vakil, in the district, who had informed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All104; 65Ind.Cas.841
1. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows: Inamullah, defendant No. 1, made a mortgage of a grove in favour of Manni Lal, defendant-appellant, on the 1st of June 1906. On the 6th of July 1910 he made a second mortgage of the same grove in favour of Shamshad Ali who is now represented by the plaintiff respondent. In 1915 the first mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree for sale. To this suit the second mortgagee Shamshad Ali was not made a party and, therefore, his rights, whatever they were, were not affected by this decree. On the 20th of January 1916 the mortgaged property was sold in execution of the decree aforesaid and was purchased by Budhi Lal, defendant No. 3, and one of the appellants before us, and on the 1st of June, 1917 he obtained possession of the property. The plaintiff has now brought this suit for sale on the second mortgage and he has impleaded as defendants the original mortgagor, the holder of the decree on the first mortgage, and the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 67Ind.Cas.533
Ryves, J.1. The essential facts so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this appeal can be stated very shortly. The mortgagor, who is no longer interested, by a mortgage by conditional sale dated the 20th of September 1900 mortgaged his zemindari share in four villages to the defendants. Subsequently on the 15th of July 1903 he executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs of three small plots of sir land for Rs. 99 15-6, and on the 8th of July 1934 he executed two other usufructuary mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs of some other small plots of sir and khud kasht land for Rs. 71 and Rs. 75 respectively. The aggregate area of these plots was a little over 3 bighas, that is something more than an acre. All these plots of land were situated within the boundary of the village of Ukraewan, one of the four villages mortgaged to the defendants. These three usufructuary mortgages were all unregistered. The terms of all of them were similar. The mortgagees undertook...
Tag this Judgment!