Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1926All439
1. The suit of the plaintiff Narain Prasad was dismissed by the trial Court of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this finding and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. This appeal is filed from the order of remand.2. One Chhotey Lal had two sons and the widow of one of them, Mt. Ganeshi by name, made certain transfers in favour of the defendant of this suit, Raj Bahadur. Mt. Ganeshi had a daughter, Mt. Katori, who was an heir to the property on the death of her mother, the lifeholder. She instituted a suit in 1917 (Suit No. 116 of 1917) for a declaration that the transfers were beyond the power of a Hindu widow and sought a declaration that they were not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit she died on 12th November 1917. The plaintiff of this suit, Narain Prasad, applied to the Court to be brought on the record as representative in interest of Mt. Kator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 94Ind.Cas.157
1. The suit of the plaintiff Narain Prasad was dismissed by the Trial Court of the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with this finding and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. This appeal is filed from the order of remand. One Chhotey Lal had two sons and the widow of one of them Musammat Ganeshi by name made certain transfers in favour of the defendant of this suit Raj Bahadur. Musammat Ganeshi had a daughter Musammat Katori who was an heir to the property on the death of her mother the life holder. She instituted a suit in 1917 (Suit No. 117 of 1917) for a declaration that the transfers were beyond the power of a Hindu widow and sought a declaration that they were not binding on her. During the pendency of the suit she died on the 12th November 1917. The plaintiff of this suit Narain Prasad applied to the Court to be brought on the record as representative in interest of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1939All177
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The suit was for recovery of Rupees 4096-9-9 on the foot of a promissory note dated 29th December 1930 which, was alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff who is his brother in renewal of an earlier promissory note dated 27th December 1929. The defendant admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action Inasmuch as the money had been advanced not by the plaintiff, but by the mother of the parties Mt. Chhabraji in the plaintiff's name and that 21/2 years before the suit Mt. Chhabraji had remitted the debt and had handed over the promissory note and the receipt to the defendant, but it had somehow or other fallen into the possession of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the real owner of the promissory note in suit and that there was no remission of the debt as alleged by the defendant. The plea o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC1327
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These groups of Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the common questions of law and facts are involved and since all these writ petitions raises common questions, they are being heard together and are decided by the common judgment. Learned Counsel argued treating Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001 to be leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. All the learned Counsel for petitioner a well as learned Standing Counsel have made the statement that no further affidavits are required in each writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-'(A) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call the record of the case and advertisement dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and quash the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 to the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All195
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent to recover possession of property which originally belonged to one Dhanraj, who died on the 3rd of April, 1885. Dhanraj left surviving him two widows, Musammat Lali, the appellant before us, and Musammat Sundar, now deceased, and a son by Musammat Lali, named Nand Lal, who is also dead. The property is now in the possession of Musammat Lali. The plaintiff alleges that he was adopted by Dhanraj in Sambat 1927, corresponding to 1870-71, and was brought up and maintained by him. He also alleges that at the settlement of 1877, Dhanraj made a will, which he caused to be recorded in the village administration paper, to the effect that on his death the plaintiff should be his heir, and that if a son should be born to him (Dhanraj), the son and the plaintiff should hold the property in equal shares. He states that after the death of Dhanraj, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff's name to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All383
John Stanley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh refusing the application of the appellants under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sot aside an ex parte decree which was passed against them on the 14th of June, 1900. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for money alleged to be due to them on a balance of accounts. The defendants are one Bhura Mal, his daughter-in-law Musam-mat Gayatri, the widow of Ganga Prasad, a deceased son of Bhura Mal, who is a minor, and Jamna Das, the minor son of Bhura Mal. Bhura Mal was admittedly duly served with summons in the suit, and also, as has been proved, with a notice under the provisions of Rule 128 of the Court's Rules calling upon him to state whether he was willing to act as guardian ad litem for the minor defendants. It appears that he paid no attention to this notice, and that the Court omitted to pass any order appointing him or any other person to be such guardian, as required by Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All385
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question before us was referred to a Full Bench on the ground of its importance, and is whether a sub-mortgagee of mortgagee rights is entitled to a decree for sale of those rights. I understand this to be whether, when a mortgagee has sub-mortgaged his interest in the property mortgaged to him to a sub-mortgagee, the sub-mortgagee is entitled to sell the interest in the property of his sub-mortgagor without impleading the mortgagor and foreclosing his equity of redemption; whether in fact the interest in the property mortgaged which has passed to the sub-mortgagee can be sold, leaving the equity of redemption outstanding in the mortgager.2. Before I deal with this question it may be well to ascertain what is the nature of a mortgage and sub-mortgage as usually met with in these Provinces. 'We rarely come across a mortgage in the English form, namely, a mortgage by way of conveyance of his land by the mortgagor to the mortgagee with a proviso that on repayment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.137a
1. This first appeal arises out of an application made by one Chaudhari Gopi Nath decree-holder. The application is under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act asking for a decree under that section and for sale of certain property of Dalip Singh and other judgment-debtors.2. Among other objections raised by the judgment-debtors was an objection to the effect that the claim to this decree was barred inasmuch as the suit was filed when more than 6 years had expired after the execution of the bond. The bond was dated 16th of March 1884, the suit brought upon it was instituted on the 28th of August 1902. Several payments had been made from time to time but the judgment-debtor objected that these payments were not payments made towards interest 'as such'. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held that these payments should be considered payments appropriated by the judgment-creditor towards interest due under the bond. The Lower Court in considering the application for execution w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1912)ILR34All375; 14Ind.Cas.154
Henry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage-bond alleged to have been executed on the 25th January, 1881, by Nathu Singh and Kallu, who are now represented by Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1. The suit was filed on the 8th August, 1910, the 7th August being a Sunday. The original bond was not produced. The plaintiffs alleged that it was in the possession of defendants 2 to 4 and filed a copy. Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1, pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without first obtaining a succession certificate, and that the original bond had been paid off. In the court of first instance a succession certificate to collect a debt of Rs. 500 in respect of the bond now in suit was filed by the plaintiffs. No evidence was adduced by either party. The court held that, as the execution of the bond was not specifically denied in the written statement, it must be held to have been admitted and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Musammat Amarti, defendant No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 16Ind.Cas.149
Henry Richards, C.J.1. One Ram Narain was declared to be insolvent by the Court of Small Causes, Cawnpore, and the respondent was appointed to be Receiver of his estate. On the application of the respondent, under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act certain transfers made by the insolvent in favour of the applicant were set aside by an order, dated March 18th, 1911. The applicant presented an appeal to the District Judge on April 26th, 1911. His appeal was within limitation only if he was entitled under Section 12 of the Limitation Act to deduct the time spent by him in obtaining a copy of the order of the Court of first instance. The District Judge, following the decision of Knox and Piggott, JJ. in Jugal Kishore v. Gur Narain 33 A. 738 : 8 A.L.J. 833 : 11 Ind. Cas. 197 held that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. This is an application for revision of the order of the District Judge. It has ...
Tag this Judgment!