Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1902)ILR24All553
John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Mirzapur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, appellant, on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property claimed is a house which originally belonged to one Sahai. After Sahai's death it was in the possession of his widow, Musammat Kabutra, who died in 1892. The defendants are the brother, and the sons of the brother of Musammat Kabutra, and they are alleged to be in possession of the house. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to the house as next heir of Sahai after his widow's death. The suit was resisted upon the ground, amongst others, that it offended against the provisions of the 43rd section of the Code. The Court of first instance overruled this plea and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants appealed, and in their appeal they reiterated the plea based on the provisions of Section 43. The lower appellate Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 17Ind.Cas.644
1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the appellant for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 10th January 1889, executed by the first defendant, Bakhtawar Singh, and his father, Partap Singh, for self and as guardian of his son, Risal Singh, the defendant No. 2, who was at that time a minor. The amount secured by the mortgage is Rs. 10,000, but the plaintiff alleges that she has paid only Rs. 8,337-9-0, which she seeks to recover with interest by sale of the mortgaged property. There was a prior mortgage in respect of the same property in favour of Munna Lal, the father of the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff alleges that this mortgage has been discharged by her. Those defendants have purchased the mortgaged property from the first two defendants under a sale-deed, dated the 18th of July 1896, and have, therefore, been made parties to the suit. The fifth defendant, Banarsi Das, is the grandson of one Shibban Lal, who also held a prior mortgage in respect of the property mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1909)ILR31All239
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. These three appeals arise out of two suits which were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, one by Richard Ross Skinner against one Durga Prasad and Thomas William Skinner and the other by Thomas William Skinner against Durga Prasad to recover possession of the village of Sherpur in the district of Bulandshahar and for mesne profits; both of which suits were dismissed. Appeal No. 106 is an appeal by Thomas William Skinner in the suit brought by Richard Ross Skinner against the finding of the lower Court that he is not a legitimate son of the late Thomas Brown Skinner, who was the father of himself and brother of Richard Ross Skinner. Appeal No. 107 is an appeal by the same appellant in the suit which was instituted by him' against the same finding, and also against the decision of the lower Court upon the construction of the will of the late Thomas Skinner, grandfather of the appellant. Appeal No. 123 is an appeal by Richard ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 3Ind.Cas.66
1. These three appealsarise out of two suits which were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, one by Richard Ross Skinner against one Durga Prasad and Thomas William Skinner and the other by Thomas William Skinner against Durga Prasad to recover possession of the village of Sherpur in the District of Bulandshahr and for mesne profits, both of which suits were dismissed. Appeal No. 106 is an appeal by Thomas William Skinner in the suit brought by Richard Ross Skinner against the finding of the lower Court that ho is not a legitimate son of the late Thomas Brown Skinner, who was the father of himself and brother of Richard Ross Skinner. Appeal No. 107 is an appeal by the same appellant in the suit which was instituted by him against the same finding, and also against the decision of the lower Court upon the construction of the will of the late Thomas Skinner, grandfather of the appellant. Appeal No. 123 is an appeal by Richard Ross Skinner in the suit instituted by him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All166
John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.1. This is an appeal against so much of a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated September 24th, 1903, as makes the appellant personally liable under a decree of that date passed against him and other defendants.2. The appellant and other members of his family constituted a joint undivided Hindu family, owners as such of trading and banking firms at Cawnpore and Lucknow. The firm at Cawnpore was known by the style of Jagat Nath Thandi Mal, and at Lucknow by that of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi. The principal defendant Lala Sheo Prasad Rai Bahadur was treasurer of the branches of the Bank of Bengal at Cawnpore and Lucknow and had occupied that position for many years. It was on his appointment to be the treasurer at Lucknow that the firm of Sheo Prasad Khazanchi was established there. That firm failed and ceased to do any new business in the early part of 1902. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff respondent to recover principal with in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All1
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by several plaintiffs, who prayed that a decree might be granted them for recovery of possession by redemption of certain property set out in the schedule attached to the plaint. They also asked for mesne profits. The plaintiffs may be divided into representatives of two separate groups, and for the purposes of convenience the one group is termed in this judgment the Rupa group and the second group the Jhanda group. In this appeal we are concerned only with the Rupa group. Both the Courts below have held that their claim to recover possession by redemption is barred by reason of a suit namely, suit No. 125 of 1896, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, in which one Jhadda and others brought a similar claim for redemption affecting the property the subject-matter of the present appeal against Chhitar Mal, who in both cases was arrayed as one of the defendants. The said Chhitar Mal is mortgagee in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All4
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application made fay the first respondent for execution of a decree obtained by Musammat Samundra Kuar against the appellant Babu Narain Das. She was the wife of the respondent Tirlok Tiwari, but left him fifteen or sixteen years ago and became a prostitute. The decree was obtained by her after she had left her husband the respondent. She having died, the respondent claims as her legal representative to execute the decree. The application was opposed by the appellant, judgment-debtor, on the ground that the unchastity and degradation of Musammat Samundra Kuar severed the tie of relationship between herself and her husband and that consequently he was not her heir and not entitled to make the application. This objection prevailed in the Court of first instance, but was overruled by the lower appellate Court. The judgment-debtor appeals and repeats the objection put forward by him in the Courts below. The first, second and third plea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All7
Richards, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge at Moradabad, suggesting that a commitment against the six persons named as opposite parties should be quashed. The powers of the High Court to quash a commitment are those conferred by Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, and in my opinion there is no ground for quashing the commitment in the present case. It appears that on the 20th of September 1905 one Musammat Mumtaz-un-nissa filed a complaint in the Deputy Magistrate's Court, in which she accused the persons I have mentioned above with offences under Sections 148, 337 and 458, Indian Penal Code. I may here remark, although it may not be very material, that the learned Sessions Judge is wrong in stating in his reference that the complaint was laid under Sections 365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. A considerable amount of evidence was taken, but on the 5th of December, without having issued notice to the opposite party, he dismissed the complaint. Without in any way wishi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All76
Banerji, J.1. One Chhatarpat Singh was the owner of a 6 1/4 biswa share of zamindari. He had two sons, Kanhai and Gokul, who inherited his property in equal shares. Kanhai's sons were Makhan and Gandharp. Gokul had a son Badri who inherited his share of the property. Badri having died without issue, his half share passed to his mother, Musammat Dhan Kunwar.2. The following mortgages of the property of Chhatarpat Singh were made by the different members of his family:(1) On 1st March 1889, Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp made a simple mortgage of 6 1/4 biswas in favour of Jagannath, father of the appellant, Parsotam Narain.(2) On 8th July 1889, the same persons (Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp) made a mortgage by way of conditional sale of 4 biswas 13 biswansis in favour of one Nand Ram.(3) On 8th August 1890, Dhan Kunwar and Gandharp made a simple mortgage of 2 biswas to Ganga Ram, who, on 10th June 1902, sold his rights as mortgagee to Parsotam Narain, appellant.(4) On 16th September 1891, Gandharp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1907)ILR29All82
George Knox and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, to recover possession of property, movable and immovable, of the value of upwards of Rs. 6,00,000. The property belonged to one Nanak Chand, a Brahman residing in Meerut, who died on the 16th of October 1899. He left him surviving his widow named Musammat Champa, who died at Calcutta on the 9th of March 1900. He left no issue. The plaintiffs are the grandsons and great-grandsons of one Kishan Sahai, the paternal uncle of Nanak Chand, and claim to be entitled to his estate as reversioners. On the 20ch of January 1885 Nanak Chand executed a will, which is printed at page 72 of the respondent's book. He was then in the 23rd year of his age. By this will he left his property, subject to an allowance of Rs. 100 a month to any widow he should leave behind, in trust to the District Judge, and, if he should decline to act, to the Collector of the district. By paragraph 8 of the wi...
Tag this Judgment!