Allahabad Court January 1925 Judgments
Abdul Wahid Vs. Hatim Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All554
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption with respect to the sale of a share situated in mahal munzabta of Abdul Wahid the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff and the vendor had proprietary interests, and in which the defendant vendee has not proprietary interest. There were many pleas taken by the defendants. Among others there were the pleas, that there was no custom of pre-emption in this village : that the custom did not apply to resumed muaft lands which had been sold and lastly, that the defendant being a proprietor in the village out of which this mahal had been carved, he was on an equal footing with the plaintiff. The Court of first instance decreed the claim; but on appeal the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit in toto.2. To prove the existence of this alleged custom the plaintiff produced a wajib-ul-arz of the year 1873 which contains a clause relating to the right of pre-emption. On behalf of the defendant three judgments, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Prasad Rout Vs. Mangal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All339; 87Ind.Cas.294
1. This is a defendant s appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the mortgage deed, and a decree on the basis of it obtained by the contesting defendants, were collusive, null and void, and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a separated brother of Kalap Nath Singh deceased. On Kalap Nath Singh's death, his son, Harbans Singh, survived him. On the death of Harbans, Kalap Nath Singh's widow, Mt. Acharja, succeeded to the ostate as a Hindu mother. Kalap Nath in his life time had executed a simple mortgage deed on the 13th of May 1914, when his son, Harbans, was alive. After the death of Kalap Nath and Harbans, the defendant mortgagee instituted a suit on the basis of the deed, and obtained an ex parte decree on the 4th of November 1920, against Mt. Aeharja. The plaintiff, as the next reversioner, has instituted a suit alleging that the original mortgage deed was without any legal necessity, and, was, therefore, not binding on the joint Hindu family estate, and furt...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunni Lal Vs. Natha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All594
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a first appeal from order which has been by the decree-holder and arises out of the following circumstances:A mortgage decree for sale was obtained against Madan Lal who died subsequent to the decree. In his place Onkar Das, his brother and Natha Ram, his nephew, were brought upon the record as his legal representatives and heirs. There were, first certain objections filed by Onkar Das with which we are not concerned in this appeal. On the 15th of November 1922, Natha Ram filed certain objections purporting to be made under Section 47 and also under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice was issued to the decree-holder, but the report of the process-server was that he refused to accept notice. The Court considered the service sufficient and ordered that ex parte proceedings should be taken. On the 24th February 1923, the objector got the objections amended as being exclusively under Section 47, and on that date the Court passed an ex parte order...
Tag this Judgment!Jhunni Lal Vs. Natha Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.287
1. This is a first appeal from order which has been filed by the decree-holder and arises out of the following circumstances: A mortgage-decree for sale was obtained against Madan Lal who died subsequent to the decree. In his place Onkar Das his brother and Natha Ram his nephew were brought upon the record as his legal representatives and heirs. There were first certain objections filed by Onkar Das with which we are not concerned in this appeal. On the 15th of November 1922 Natha Ram filed certain objections purporting to be made under Section 47 and also under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the C.P.C. Notice was issued to the decree-holder, but the report of the process-server was that he refused to accept notice. The Court considered the service sufficient and ordered that ex parte proceedings should be taken on the 24th of February 1923 the objector got the objections amended as being exclusively under Section 47, and on that date the Court passed an ex parte order allowing the objections.2...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Vs. Gobind Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All473; 87Ind.Cas.426
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision filed at the instance of the complainant asking this Court to set aside an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore and to restore the order of the learned Magistrate convicting the opposite parties.2. It appears that the complainant's masters were wholesale merchants of cloth and the opposite parties were retail traders. The opposite parties owed money to the complainant's firm. The complainant's masters gave the opposite parties 24 hours' time to pay up. This time was grantee by means of a telegram, although the parties were residing at the same place, viz., Cawnpore. The object of sending a telegram was evidently to show the urgency of the matter. The prosecution case is that the opposite parties approached the creditor firm and induced thorn to grant 15 days' time to pay up. It is further said that the object was that within the time granted, the opposite parties would remove their goods from their shop and woul...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Nandan Prasad Vs. Jagar Nath Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All459; 87Ind.Cas.278
Walsh, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order which raises an important question - though to my mind a simple question - of the proper construction of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the Court below an auction-purchaser who had purchased property put up for sale under a decree applied to have the sale set aside on the ground that he had suffered substantial loss owing to irregularity in the publication and conduct of the sale. An objection was taken in the Court below that the auction-purchaser had no right to apply under this rule. That objection was overruled by the learned Judge, who adopted the view taken by the Madras High Court in a case to which I will refer in a moment, and he then went on to hold that the property had been misdescribed by a material omission from the sale proclamation which omitted to mention that the property was subject to a charge called a perjawat, that the applicant was unware of it, and that he was induced to enter into the purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sunder Misra Vs. Jai Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All271; 87Ind.Cas.174
1. This is an appeal which raises a rather interesting point. One Badal owned a certain property and he left behind him a widow Mt. Taashi. On her death disputes arose as to who was the heir of Badal, and two claimants came forward, one Ram Sunder and the other Bhawani Prasad. In mutation proceedings the Court declared in favour of Ram Sunder, and proceedings were taken with regard to the redemption of a mortgage, and there was au arbitration and an award which as between mortgagee and mortgagor fixed the price of the redemption of this mortgage at Rs. 250-8-0. Bhawani Pra3ad disregarded the mutation proceedings and the award by which the property could be redeemed on payment of Rs. 250-8-0 and sued for redemption. He included in that action Jai Karan Singh and Ram Sunder. He withdrew the action against Ram Sunder, and came to a compromise with Jai Karan Singh, which compromise was embodied in a decree and provided that he (Bhawani Prasad) might claim redemption. Thereupon Ram Sunder c...
Tag this Judgment!Abhainandan Prasad Vs. Pashpat Nath Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All449; 87Ind.Cas.298
1. In support of the alleged custom the plaintiff relied on entries in the wajib-ul-arzea of 1833, 1860 and 1885. He also relied on a judgment in the ease of the year 1901 and a judgment of the year 1907, and also on a reference in those judgments to an earlier pre-emption decree of 1880. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the defendant that having regard to the previous history of this village, the variations in the three wajib-ul-arzes, and the partition which has since been effected, there is really no custom in this village. In order to show the previous history of this village reliance is placed on two documents called 'Kaifiyat Mahtawi' and 'Kaifiyat Sarishtai Nizamat' of 1833 and 1860 respectively. These documents show that soon after the district of Gorakhpur had been acquired by the British Government from the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, the village was farmed out to one Sheikh Farhat from 1210 to 1212 Fasli. From 1213 to 1215 Fasli the village was in possession of...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Khatik Vs. Mahadeo Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All282a; 87Ind.Cas.796
Ryves, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this application arises to recover Rs. 300 principal and Rs. 186 interest due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. It has been founded by both Courts and it is indeed apparent on the face of the document itself that originally there was no agreement to pay interest and that the agreement to pay interest at Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem was interpolated after the note was written. Both Courts have found that this was done without the knowledge or consent of the defendant. The Courts, however, have held that 8. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which renders a negotiable instrument absolutely void where a material alteration has been made in it does not apply, because this particular note is not a negotiable instrument for it makes the payment due to a specified person only. This finding is opposed to the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 13 as amended by Act VIII of 1919. This document is clearly a negotiable instrumen...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip and ors. Vs. Khazan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All362; 87Ind.Cas.340
Lindsay, J.1. Both these appeals have arisen out of two suits for pre-emption and they may be disposed of by one judgment. The cases have been up in appeal here before and were sent back for redisposal to the Court of the learned District Judge of Bulandshahr.2. The question before us is whether a custom of pre-emption admittedly obtaining in the village of mauza Ganaura Shaikh, applies in respect of the particular property now sought to be pre-empted. It is to be mentioned here that the property in question is situated in a mahal known as mahal Alladad. The plaintiffs are co-sharers with the vendor in mahal Alladad. The vendee is admittedly a stranger.3. The plaintiffs relied upon what was set out in the document known as the 'dastur dehi' prepared in the year 1296F at the settlement of Mr. Stoker. The dastur dehi must certainly be taken to be a record of custom, and there can be no doubt that the custom of pre-emption is recorded. The language of the document is as follows:In joint z...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »