1
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-24-1930
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.477
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ.1. One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-15-1930
Reported in : AIR1931All29
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that that suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233, (k), Land Revenue Act. The facts are that the plaintiffs sued for possession of seven-eighths of certain zamindari property in the possession of Mt. Gurdei, defendant 2 claiming that plaintiffs and defendant 3, Ram Naik, are entitled to the whole of this property. The property in suit belonged to one Harnath, who was of the family of the plaintiffs, and it has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that on the death of Harnath his son Maharaj Kishor was a leper to such an extent that he was disqualified from inheriting the property of his father. Maharaj Kishor nevertheless was entered for the property after the death of his father and died very shortly afterwards, and left a widow, Mt. Ram Peary, defendant 1. The death of Harnath took place wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-24-1930
Reported in : AIR1930All225
1. One Basdeonand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On 2nd November 1927 Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shankernand Gir the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798-11-0 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached:and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof.3. The application came before Sudeshar Maitra on 4th February 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full.The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant objector in connexion with his appeal to His Majesty in Council. The decree-holder is anxious to lay his hands on these i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-18-1930
Reported in : AIR1931All113; 129Ind.Cas.719
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff's and arises out of a suit for redemption of an alleged mortgage, dated 22nd August 1864. The case hinges upon the construction of two documents which were executed on the date last mentioned. By the first document Ex. A, Ram Prasad Rae and 26 others declared that they had absolutely sold certain property in patti Mathura Rae to Khushi Ram, Bhagirathi Ram, Kharag Ram and Ishri Ram for Rs. 2,758-5-3. On the same day, a second document was executed by Khushi Ram, Bhagirathi Ram, Kharag Ram and Ishri Ram whereby they declared that if the vendors paid off the entire amount due by them within 12 years from the date of the execution of the document, the said sale deed should be returned and the property sold be redeemed.2. The present suit was instituted on 3rd March 1925, on the allegation that the two documents were integral parts of a single transaction and constituted a mortgage by conditional sale.3. The suit was resisted inter alia on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-21-1930
Reported in : AIR1930All506
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for redemption of three mortgages two of 3rd February 1916 and a third dated 10th August 1918, executed by defendants 10 and 11 in favour of defendant 1 for Rs. 1,100, 300 and 500, respectively. One of the conditions agreed on was that the mortgagors would not be at liberty to redeem within 54 years. The equity of redemption subsequently passed to the plaintiff by a deed dated 9bh August 1919. The present suit was brought on 30th January 1925 for redemption in disregard of the terms of 54 years already referred to.2. The pleas in defence, which it is necessary to mention for the purpose of this appeal, were:(1) That the suit was premature, and (2) that the mortgagee, not having performed his part of the contract, in that he failed to pay a sum of Rs. 75 to a prior mortgagee, as he ought to have done in terms of the mortgage deed, is not entitled to insist on the term of 54 years stipulated in the mort...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-03-1930
Reported in : AIR1931All183
ORDER1. This revision arises out of a suit for recovery of money on foot of a promissory note instituted in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court at Allahabad. The promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the defendants for a sum of Rs. 500 and Provides for the repayment of the loan, on demand, with interest at 4 per cent per mensem. The defence was that the execution of the promissory note was admitted by the defendant not subject to additional pleas. The further pleas were to the effect that defendant 2 never borrowed any money, nor did she execute any promissory note, that the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence, for want of proper stamp duty, that defendant 1 borrowed Rs. 50 only and that that was the only consideration that passed.2. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, tried only one issue, namely the one as to the admissibility of the document in. suit in evidence and holding that it was inadmissible, dismissed the suit.3. It appears that the suit was on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-05-1930
Reported in : AIR1931All40
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad affirming the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for enforcement of a lien. Narain Singh, defendant 1, owned a zamindari share in Mauza Mandal Shankarpur, pargana Bhojpur, in the District of Farrukabad. On 1st August 1904 he executed a simple mortgage deed in respect of the bulk of the aforesaid share in favour of one Sadho Ram for Rs. 500 at a certain rate of interest.2. On 19th January 1912 he executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of one Pearey Lal for Rs. 1,000 and left the entire sum with the mortgagee with the direction that the latter should pay the amount to Sadho Ram and redeem his mortgage. On the same day, he also executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 for Rs. 5,000 for a period of 20 years. The property mortgaged by these two documents was the entire interest of Narain Singh in Mandal Shankarpur. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-05-1930
Reported in : 131Ind.Cas.599
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad affirming the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for enforcement of a lien.2. Narain Singh defendant No. 1 owned a zemindari share in Mauza Mandal Shankarpur, Pargana Bhojpur, in the District of Farrukhabad. On the 1st of August, 1904, he executed a simple mortgage deed in respect of the bulk of the aforesaid share in favour of one Sadbo Ram for Rs. 500 at a certain rate of interest.3. On the 19th of January, 1912, he exectued a simple mortgage-deed in favour of one Pearaylal for Rs. 1,000 and left the entire sum with the mortgagee with the direction that the latter should pay the amount to Sadho Ram and redeem hie mortgage On the same day, he also executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for Rs. 5,000 for a period of 20 years. The property mortgaged by these two documents was the entire interest of Narain Singh in ...
Tag this Judgment!