Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-20-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Mad611
..... maintenance on kaveramma. and the adopted son, anantha, and that that was the occasion for the execution of the documents. they show that there-had been some mediation between the parties and that the mediators had recommended kaveramma to hand over-possession of this property to padmavati. it is provided that padmavati is to enjoy the profits of this property for her .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-02-1928
Reported in : (1929)56MLJ66
..... the meantime he died. it is stated in the release deed that the father of the plaintiffs wanted to take steps to file a civil suit but that at the mediation of certain persons this release was executed. it appears from the terms of the release deed that the widow was making alienations, creating encumbrances, mortgages and othis over it and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-13-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All422
..... the witness-box. according to the defendants hira lal was the central figure of the drama. according to lakshmi narain's version, khimman lal was the person who sought the mediation of newal kishor to bring round hira lal. no explanation has been offered for the non-production of these witnesses. their place is supplied by lakshmi narain, who was a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-26-1928
Reported in : AIR1929Cal685,114Ind.Cas.407
..... defendants' opponent, whoever it may happen to be, would fall and by keeping the opponent as well as the court in ignorance of the real facts by means of a mediated contrivance secure to the defendants an unfair advantage which would bring about an erroneous decision when the question would arise as to what the real rent was. this sort of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-18-1928
Reported in : 117Ind.Cas.113; (1928)55MLJ733
..... as april, 1902. it is not disputed that there were disputes in the family between rama jogi's branch and suryanarayana,'s branch and there was an award by the mediators, exhibit xxv which is dated 25th february, 1899. this is an award which purports to have been made by two arbitrators and it sets out the relationship of the parties .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-03-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All641
boys, j.1. this case has been referred to this fall bench for determination of certain questions relating to the law governing 'family arrangements'. on the death of one nathua in the first quarter of the year 1924, an application for mutation was made by ramgopal, the present plaintiff-appellant, a first cousin of nathua. on 31st march 1924 objections were filed by tulshi ram, munshi lal and duli chand, grandsons of ramgopal's great-uncles. their objection took the form of an allegation that ramgopal's father had been adopted into another branch of the family and ramgopal had, therefore, lost all right to succeed to nathua's property. on 24th april 1924 ramgopal and the three objectors, by a joint application, stated that they had arrived at a compromise and asked for mutation to be made in ramgopal's name as to 1/3rd, in the names of tulshi ram and munshi lal as to 1/3rd, and in the name of duli chand as to the remaining 1/3rd, and on 3rd may 1924, order was made accordingly. on 6th august 1921 ramgopal filed a suit against tulshi ram, munshi lal and duli chand, defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively, claiming the whole property. duli chand did not contest the suit but supported the plaintiff's claim. munshi lal, defendant 2, also put in no appearance, but apparently left his brother tulshi ram, defendant 1, to contest the suit. ramgopal's father's adoption was again pleaded but was held by both the lower courts not to have been established. both courts, however, held that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-05-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Bom427; (1928)30BOMLR1149; 113Ind.Cas.27
charles fawcett, kt., a.c.j.1. the plaintiff-appellant brought this suit, against the defendant for a refund of rs. 19,000, the amount of consideration that he paid for the purchase of a field bearing survey nos. 108-1 and 108-2 near ahmedabad, with interest thereon. this purchase was made on september 5, 1919, under a registered conveyance, and he had been duly placed in possession. but in a suit of 1920 brought by cue somnath motilal for redemption of a mortgage on no. 108-2, somnath obtained a decree on the ground that the defendant's vendors had no right of ownership such as the defendant purported to pass on to the plaintiff, but were only in the position of sub-mortgagees. this no. 108-2 had become vested in three daughters of one narsi, who mortgaged it in 1889 for rs. 900. the plaintiff's title to no. 108-2 thus became defective. he alleged that he had bought the land in order to build on it and that he was entitled to a rescission of the transfer and for a refund of the amount he had paid, the defendant disputed the right of the plaintiff to get back the whole consideration on various grounds; but his main defence may be said to be based on a subsequent transaction, whereby on july 23, 1924, he bought somnath's rights in 108-2 (ex, 65). the decree that somnath had obtained in the suit of 1920 had in the meanwhile been confirmed on appeal. the plaintiff did not appeal, and applications for execution had been made in respect of somnath's decree; this was why he brought .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-21-1928
Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR766
lancelot sanderson, j.1. this is an appeal by musa miya walad mahamad shaffi, a minor, and isa miya alias mahamad ismailkhan walad mahainad shaffi, who were defendants nos. 18 and 19 in the suit, against the judgment and decree dated december 6, 1923, of the high court of bombay, which varied the o. decree of the learned subordinate judge who tried the suit.2. the suit brought on january 6, 1919, by kadar bax sir lancelot khaj bax, who is now dead; his representatives are the first sanderson respondent in this appeal.3. the plaintiff claimed as one of the heirs under mahoinedan law of one abdul rasul, a sunni mahomedan, a three-eighth share of the properties scheduled in the plaint and left by the said abdul rasul, who was his brother. he alleged that abdul rasul died, leaving him surviving as his heirs a widow, sahebjan (who was the first defendant, and who is now dead), a daughter, rahimatbi (who was the second defendant and who is the second respondent in this appeal), and his brother, the plaintiff: that according to mahomedan law the widow was entitled to one-eighth, the daughter to one-half, and the plaintiff' to three-eighths; he alleged that the widow and the daughter and their tenants (defendants nos. 3 to 17) were in possession of the above-mentioned property.4. the widow and the daughter filed a joint written statement stating that in 1910 abdul rasul gave all his properties to his grandsons the appellants, who are the sons of his daughter rahimatbi, under an oral .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-20-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All516
1. this is an appeal from a judgment of the additional subordinate judge of allahabad, giving the plaintiff-respondent a decree for a declaration that certain properties named in the plaint are wakf properties, and for possession thereof as mutwalli, and a sum of nearly rs. 2,000 mesne profits which had been realized by some of the defendants from the property during the period of their possession and that of the receiver. the property concerned was owned by one arab ali khan, a resident of allahabad city, it is mostly zamindari property in the three parganas of arail, sikandra and chail, a consideration the importance of which will become clear later on. there is also some land occupied by the houses of tenants or lying waste in the city of allahabad. the plaintiff-respondent mt. sikandra begam is the daughter-in-law of arab ali khan, and she claimed possession as mutwalli under the terms of a deed of wakf said to have been executed by arab ali khan on 14th april 1919. the first three defendants are one of the widows and the two surviving daughters of arab ali khan, and the defendant 4 is khan sahib mahmud ali khan, to whom a small portion of the wakf property had been transferred before the institution of the suit. according to the contention made on his behalf before us he was unnecessarily impleaded, as he had parted with this property on 13th may 1925 after the institution of the suit but before the decision by the lower court; he was included in the appeal by mistake .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-12-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All699; 117Ind.Cas.351
weir, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for proprietary possession of a village of the name of sarai aghi chand alias chandaukhi situate in pargana sikandara of the district of allahabad and for recovery of rs. 500 on account of mesne profits for kharif and rabi 1331 fasli. one thakur jagtamba prasad singh was the owner of the property in suit jointly with the plaintiff who was his son. the plaintiff is a parihar thakur. the defendant belongs to the baghel clan. he is highly connected and belongs to the family of his highness the maharajah of rewah. jagtamba prasad singh had a daughter of the name of mt. pershad kuer. he gave this daughter in marriage to the defendant in the month of june of the year 1915. on 8th may 1918 jagtamba prasad singh executed a deed of gift in favour of his daughter, certain recitals of which are material for the purpose of this appeal. he stated in this document:on the occasion of 'kanyadan' ceremony of my daughter mt. parshad kuar, i the executant had made a 'sankalap' of my zemindari property of the value of rs. 8,000, situate in mauza sarai aghai chand alias chandauki pargana sikandra, district allahabad, but the deed of gift could not be executed up to this time'... 'i have made a gift of a 16 anna zamindari property bearing a jama of rs. 443, situate in mauza sarai aghai chand alias chandauki... in favour of mt. parshad kuar, wife of anmol singh, resident of patharhi, rewah state, daughter of me, the executant. i have put .....Tag this Judgment!