Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All73; 129Ind.Cas.734
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by Abdul Shakur Khan, plaintiff, whose suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage has been decreed by the two lower Courts but has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. On 4th April 1915, Abdul Razzaq executed a simple mortgage in favour of Abdul Haq for Rs. 150 with 1 per cent per mensem interest. On 20th June 1921, the receiver of the estate of Abdul Haq insolvent sold the mortgagee rights to defendant 1 Mt. Rafiqunnissa. On 20th June 1922, Mt. Rafiqunnissa made a sub-mortgage of the mortgagee rights to the plaintiff for Rs. 200 at Re. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem.2. In Suit No. 207 of 1925, the plaintiff sued as owner of the mortgagee rights under the mortgage of 4th April 1915, and based his suit on that mortgage. On 21st October 1926, the District Judge in first appeal dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the following grounds:The plaintiff in this case does not care to sue on foot of his mortgage and so his suit cannot l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All604
Mukerji J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court and the point for decision is very short and simple.2. It appears that one Harkesh obtained a decree for possession which was to be executed on the death of a certain lady, Mt. Roopo, if defendant 1 omitted to do something within one month of the death of the aforesaid lady. The contingency contemplated did happen and Harkesh put his decree into execution. While the decree was in execution, Harkesh died and his sons made an application for substitution and were substituted in place of Harkesh and the execution was proceeded with The judgment-debtors took several exceptions to the execution of the decree and one of these was that the sons were bound to make a fresh application and the execution application by Harkesh could not bo continued and should bed ropped.3. The contention did not find favour with the lower appellate Court and did not find favour with the learned Judge of this Court. It was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All449
Dalal, J.1. One Mr. Rashid Ahmad filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the district of Meerut against Mr. Rich, Manager of the French Motor Car Company, Delhi, for an offence under Section 408, Penal Code. On behalf of the defendant the question of jurisdiction was raised and both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have decided it in favour of the complainant. What was complained of was this. The complainant had negotiations with the defendant for the purchase of a lorry of which the body was afterwards made at Meerut. The entire lorry with the body was delivered to the complainant at Meerut when ha made over to the driver of the lorry for Mr. Rich a cheque for a sum to cover the price of chassis and insurance not only for the chassis but for the body as well. When the lorry happened to be burnt it was discovered that the body costing Rs. 500 had not been insured by the defendant who was alleged on these allegations to have committed a breach of trust with respect to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All340
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendants against a final decree for sale prepared under Order 34, Rule 5. The argument on appeal is that the provisions of Order 34, Rule 4 are not applicable to a mortgage decree based upon a compromise and the Court below has therefore erred in law in directing the preparation of a final decree, and further that the application for the preparation of the final decree is barred by time. The facts very briefly are that there was a mortgage executed by the predecessors of the defendants-appellants on 8th June 1910, for a sum of Rs. 12,000 in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiff-respondents. This was a usufructuary mortgage by which the usufruct of some 40 bighas odd of sir plots was mortgaged in lieu of interest, and two zamindari shares were mortgaged as security for the principal mortgage money. A Suit No. 4 of 1913 was brought by Maharaja Kesho Prosad, a stranger to the present case, in which: it was declared that the 40 bighas of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.589
Barjor Jamshedji Dalal, J.1. One Mr. Rashid Ahmad filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate of the District of Meerut against Mr. Rich, Manager of the French Motor Oar Company, Delhi, for an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. On behalf f the defendant the question of jurisdiction was raised and both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have decided it in favour of the complainant. What was complained of was this. The complainant had negotiations with the defendant for the purchase of a lorry of which the body was afterwards made at Meerut. The entire lorry with the body was delivered to the complainant at Meerut when he made over to the driver of the lorry for Mr. Rich a cheque for a sum to cover the price of chassis and insurance not only for the chassis but for the body as well. When the lorry happened to be burnt it was discovered that the body costing Rs. 500 had not been insured by the defendant who was alleged on these allegations to have committed a breach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All534
Dalal, J.1. I am afraid that the Sessions Judge has not got a grip of the facts of the case and misunderstood them. There can be no doubt; that the patwari on 17th September 1928, gave a wrong copy of certain entries in the village records to the complainant Ram Nandan. The wrongness of the entries consisted in the patwari (appellant) not noting in the copy that besides Mt. Jhagri there were other tenants of the plots in suit. It is, however, important to remember that the complainant Ram Nandan had already purchased what he considered a fixed-rate tenancy from Mt. Jhagri prior to 17th September, that is, five days prior, on 12th September 1928. It cannot, therefore, be said that the wrong copy induced him to spend money in making the purchase.2. On 24th September he sued not only Mt. Jhagri but the others whose names appeared in the records for a declaration that the others were not tenants of the land. This suit was brought for a declaration under Section 123, Tenancy Act of 1926. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!