Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.13 seconds)
Kuer Mohammad Ashraf Ali Khan And Ors. vs Behari Lal And Anr. on 8 November, 1935 cites

Mian Feroz Shah vs Sohbat Khan on 11 April, 1933

2. Before the two lower Courts a number of defences were taken, but in this Court a number of these pleas have been abandoned. In the first place the learned Subordinate Judge who heard these appeals came to the conclusion that the mortgage-deeds, qabuliats and agreements to secure the rent due under the qabuliats formed one transaction which amounted to a simple mortgage. That being so he held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant existing and that in fact the suits could not be maintained. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have relied upon a number of authorities upon this point but it is to be observed that he gives no reasons why he regarded these various transactions as substantially forming one transaction, Dig. that of a simple mortgage. However, it has now been decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mian Faros Shah v. Sohbat Khan (1933) A.L.J. 1193 : 143 Ind Cas. 659 : A.I.R. 1933 P.C. 178 : 60 I.A. 273 : 14 Lah. 466 : Ind. Rul. (1933) P.C. 183 : (1933) M.W.N. 755 : 65 M.L.J. 150 : 38 L.W. 68: 35 Bom. L.R. 877 : 37 C.W.N. 993 : 58 C.L.J. 52 (P.C.), that where documents of this kind are executed in the manner in which they were executed in this case, they do not form one transaction and that it is not open to the parties to give evidence which tends to vary or contradict the terms of the written documents. In our judgment the present cases are entirely covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council referred to and that being so we are bound to hold that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in dismissing the plaintiffs claim on this ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Hadeo Rai And Ors. vs Baldeo Rai And Ors. on 10 March, 1921

5. From this dictum it Would appear that Tudball, J. was of opinion that before charges such as exist in the present cases could be enforced, suits would have to be brought in the Revenue Court for the arrears of rent. It is to be observed that in the case in question the point for determination in these appeals did not arise as the only point in issue was one of limitation. No argument appears to have been addressed to the Court upon the points raised in these appeals and in any event the dictum referred to is merely obiter. In that particular case a decree had actually been obtained in the Revenue Court and then steps had been taken to enforce a charge in the Civil Court. The learned Judges in that case appear to have thought that the obtaining of a decree in the Revenue Court was a condition precedent to a suit to enforce a charge, but there is nothing to show that the contrary view was ever put before them. We do not, in the circumstances, feel bound to follow the dictum to which we have referred. In any event if the case was not cognizable in the Civil Court, the lower Appellate Court having all the materials before it should have heard and determined it by reason of Section 269 (1), Agra Tenancy Act. We cannot understand the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge for not proceeding under that section. He said that there "was no question of the suits having been brought in the wrong Court. If that were so we cannot understand why he held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with them.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1