Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All109
..... verified by an agent of the plaintiff's predecessor in title, the statement therein contained would be an acknowledgment by an agent duly authorized within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act of 1908.5. we accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance under ..... prasad v. baghunandan singh (1904) 1 a.l.j. 355. is distinguishable, as in that case the claim on the mortgage had become time-barred before the limitation acts of 1871 and 1877 came into operation.4. for these reasons we are of opinion that the courts below were wrong in holding that the acknowledgment relied on by the ..... authorized in that behalf in our opinion this contention is well founded. no doubt if the plaintiff had to rely on the acknowledgment in a suit, which was governed by act xiv of 1859, an acknowledgment by an agent would not be sufficient, but at the time when the suit of the plaintiff was instituted, the present law of limitation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All63
macnaghten, j.1. this is a perfectly plain case. the action is brought by a mortgagee to enforce against a purchaser of the mortgaged property an undertaking that he entered into with his vendor. the mortgagee has no right to avail himself of that. he was no party to the sale. the purchaser entered into no contract with him, and the purchaser is not personally bound to pay this mortgage debt. therefore, he is not a person from whom, in the words of the 90th section of the transfer of property act, 'the balance is legally recoverable.' their lordships will therefore humbly advise his majesty that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All65
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar (the plaintiff) from the decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces of India, dated the 29th of May, 1908, which set aside the decree in the plaintiff's favour of the District Judge of Jaunpur, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit and certain objections which had been filed by her.2. In the suit in which the decree now under appeal was made the plaintiff, who was the widow of Sheopal Singh, claimed proprietary possession of the riasat of Singra Mau in the district of Jaunpur, and mesne profits. The defendants to the suit, who are respondents to this appeal, are Thakur Harpal Singh, a distant cousin in the male line of Sheopal Singh, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, a younger brother of the father of Thakur Harpal Singh, Raghuraj Bahadur Singh and Rampal Singh, minors, sons of Shamsher Bahadur Singh, and Thakurain Janki Kunwar, the widow of Rudarpal Singh, who was a brother of Sheopal Singh and had died witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.951
..... only that ranjit's application was barred by limitation. it expressed no opinion what-over on the question whether an appeal lay against an order passed upon an application under section 318. strictly speaking, this court ought not to have taken up the question whether ranjit's application was barred by limitation, without first deciding whether the question upon an ..... no separate suits would lie.8. i regret, however, that i am unable to hold that roshan singh lost his right to redeem the mortgage, dated the 1st of april, 1884. i adhere to the rule laid down in ram prasad v. man mohan 30 a. 256 a.w.n. (1908) 106 : 5 a.l.j. 297. the reasons given ..... was a suit by the respondent, hira lal, for possession of zemindari property purchased by his father, ranjit, at an auction-sale.2. the facts are as follows: in april 1884, two brothers, baldeo singh and nand kishore mortgaged the property in suit to ranjit in order to pay off debts incurred by their father, indarjit. in 1893, the interest of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All250
..... the profits for the years 1314 and 1315 fasli. in second appeal it is contended that this decision is erroneous, and that the case is governed by section 201 of the tenancy act. it has been found by the lower appellate court that, notwithstanding the redemption of the mortgage, the appellant continued to be recorded as lessee of the ..... settlement of profits. it seems to me that he is a person who, within the meaning of section 201 of the act, is recorded as having a proprietary right entitling him to institute this suit. under sub--section (3) of that section the court is bound to presume that the appellant has a right entitling him to institute this suit., ..... whole eight anna stare. the suit is brought under chapter xi of the tenancy act. the appellant is a co-sharer within the meaning of that chapter, for it is provided by section 166 of the act that the word 'co-sharer ' includes the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators, and assigns of a co .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.975
..... the profits for the years 1314 and 1315 fastis. in second appeal, it is contended that this decision is erroneous and that the case is governed by section 201 of the tenancy act. it has been found by the lower appellate court, that notwithstanding the redemption of the mortgage, the appellant continued to be recorded as lessee of the ..... settlement of the profits. it seems to me that he is a person who, within the meaning of section 201 of the act, is recorded as having a proprietary right entitling him to institute this suit. under sub-section (3) of that section, the court is bound to presume that the appellant has a right entitling him to institute this suit. ..... whole 8-annas share. the suit is brought under chapter xi of the tenancy act. the appellant is a ca sharer within the meaning of that chapter, for it is provided by section 166 of the act, that the word co-sharer includes the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators arid assigns of a co-sharer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All207
..... at the date of the institution of the suit the next reversioner presumptively entitled to the full ownership of the property. in rani anund koer v. court of wards (1884) i.l.r. 6 all. 428 their lordships of the privy council said:if the nearest reversionary heir refuses without sufficient cause to institute proceedings or if he has ..... the holder of a life-estate only, as where the immediate reversioner is a hindu female, there is some conflict of authority in this court. in madari v. malki (1884) i.l.r. 6 all. 428. straight and broodhust, jj., held that such a suit could not be maintained unless the immediate reversioner was shown to be in ..... precluded himself by his own act or conduct from suing or has colluded with the widow or concurred in the act alleged to be wrongful, the next presumptive reversioners would be entitled to sue. 4. these remarks clearly cover the present case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All253
..... of clear proof that the requirements of law were not complied with, the court was bound to admit the document in evidence. section 114 of the evidence act coupled . with section 60 of the registration act seems to us to be abundant justification for this proposition.3. the defendants strongly rely on the case of mujib-un-nissa v ..... admission. we are, therefore, unable to hold that the initial presentation of the bond was defective.7. we now deal with the second point. section 75 of the registration act provides as follows:if the registrar finds that the document has been executed and that the said requirements have been complied with, he shall order the ..... was not admitted and he therefore refused registration. the matter then came before the district registrar under an application made on behalf of bansi lal under section 73 of the act. the presence of farzand ali was procured and he admitted the execution of the bond. the district registrar made an order in the following terms :--' .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All261
..... the property, and thereafter the mortgagee's possession must be deemed to have been adverse; consequently the mortgagor's right to recover the property was barred under section i(12) of the limitation act xiv of 1859, on the expiry of 12 years from the date on which the principal and interest were satisfied out of the usufruct. there can be ..... redeemed, does not mean redeemed in the full sense of the word. it appears to us that on the passing of act xiv of 1859 the mortgagor's right to redeem became subject to section i(15) of that act and a suit for redemption could be brought at any time within sixty years of the mortgage. in our opinion the suit ..... from the date on which the principal and interest were satisfied out of the usufruct. prior to the passing of act xiv of 1859, there was no limitation for a suit for redemption of a mortgage, section i(15) of that act provided that the period of limitation applicable to a suit against a mortgagee for the recovery of immovable property mortgaged .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.963
..... the property, and thereafter the mortgagee's possession must be deemed to have been adverse. consequently, the mortgagor's right to recover the property was barred under section 1(12) of the limitation act, xiv of 1859, on the expiry of 12 years from the date on which the principal and interest were satisfied out of the usufruct. there can be ..... redeemed, does not mean redeemed in the full sense of the word. it appears to us that on the passing of act xiv of 1859, the mortgagor's right to redeem became subject to section 1(15) of that act and a suit for redemption could be brought at any time within sixty years of the mortgage. in our opinion, the ..... from the date on which the principal and interest were satisfied out of the usufruct. prior to the passing of act xiv of 1859, there was no limitation for a suit for redemption of a mortgage. section 1(15) of that act provided that the period of limitation, applicable to a suit against a mortgagee for the recovery of immoveable property .....
Tag this Judgment!