Allahabad Court July 1906 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chattray Vs. Nawala and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All20
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. It has been distinctly ruled in this Court in two cases at least that a lambardar has no general power to grant a lease of co-parcenary land beyond such term as the circumstances of the particular year or season may require, in the absence of a custom to the contrary. In the case of Jagannath v. Hardyal Weekly Notes, 1897, p. 207 Edge, C.J., and Blair, J., in the course of their judgment observed: 'So far as we are aware, a lambardar has no general power to grant any lease of co-parcenary land beyond such as the circumstances of the particular year or particular season may require. In order to have the co-parcenary land cultivated, to obtain the benefit therefrom of the co-parcenary body, it is reasonable that the lambardar should have power, unless it is expressly withheld from him, to make a temporary letting of the eo-parcenary land.' In that case, no doubt, the lease was a lease in perpetuity, but the principle laid down applies to all lease...
Munno and ors. Vs. Gopi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All22
Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal and the connected appeal No. 1011 of 1904 was brought by the plaintiffs respondents for the removal of a shed and sirki screens put up by the defendant appellant in front of his shops. The ground of the claim is that the shed and the screens obstruct the view of the plaintiffs' shops from the neighbouring road. The plaintiffs own certain shops for the sale of grain facing the north. Close by are the shops of the defendant facing the west. In front of the shops of both parties was an open space, to the north of which lies a public road. The defendant has put up the shed in question in front of his shops and has enclosed it with sirki screens. The only ground of the respondents' claim is, as I have said above, that these constructions obstruct the view of their shops from the road. The Court below has decreed the claim. It is contended in this appeal that a suit like this is not maintainable. In my judgment the contention is well...
Awadh Sarju Prasad Singh Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All37
John Stanley, C.J. and Knox, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the District Judge of Ghazipur, reversing the decision of the Court of first instance and dismissing the plaintiff's claim, and arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff is a great-grandson of one Baij Nath Singh who died a number of years ago possessed of considerable property. He had two sons, namely, Ram Narain Singh and the defendant Ram Prasad Singh. The parties to the suit are his descendants. Before the execution of the agreement of the 27th of March 1888, to which we shall presently refer, the members of the family of Baij Nath Singh were undivided and joint, but owing to dissensions amongst them it was determined to have a partition of the joint family property. Accordingly an agreement was entered into, of date the 27th of March 1888, between the adult members of the two branches, namely, Ram Prasad Singh and his sons Ajudhia Prasad Singh and Sita Ram Singh, of the one part, and Ram Pargash ...
Bansidhar Vs. Sital Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All13
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. The suit of the plaintiff appellant has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act is a bar to it. It appears that the plaintiff and the first defendant executed an agreement of reference to arbitration on the 22nd of March 1904. The plaintiff states in his plaint that he revoked the submission to arbitration on the ground that the arbitrator was colluding with the defendant, and that he was therefore entitled to maintain the present suit. The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that not only did the submission to arbitration subsist at the date of the suit but an award had been made before the suit was filed. The Courts below have not considered whether the plaintiff revoked the reference to arbitration. It was held by this Court in Tahal v. Bisheshar (1885) I.L.R., 8 All., 57 that the contract, the existence of which would bar a suit under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, must be an operative contra...
Ram Charan Vs. Dip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All15
John Stanley, C.J. and George Knox, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought against a lambardar. The profits claimed are for the years 1307, 1308 and 1309 Fasli. Dhanuk Singh was the lambardar for the years 1307 and 1308 and also part of 1309 Fasli. He died in the year 1309 and was succeeded by the defendants in the present litigation. The Court of first instance settled, amongst other issues, the following issue: 'Whether the defendants are liable to pay profits on the basis of jamabandi or of actual collections for the period of their own incumbency as well as of their predecessor Dhanuk Singh.' Upon this issue he found that under Section 164 of the North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act the defendants were liable to pay profits, not merely in respect of the collections in the time of Dhanuk Singh on the basis of the actual collections, but in respect of sums which remained uncollected owing to the negligence or misconduct of Dhanuk Singh. He found that there was negli...
Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Tori and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All18
Banerji and Richards, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent which has been dismissed by the Courts below. In his plaint the plaintiff claimed Rs. 549-14-0 as arrears of rent in respect of 186 bighas, 11 biswas, for the year 1310 Fasli. In the statement he made in the Court of first instance he alleged that the defendants held the whole of the land under a single lease. This allegation has been found to be untrue, and it has been found that the land in question consists of various holdings which have come into the defendants' possession at different times upon separate engagements for payment of rent. The Court of first instance upon this finding dismissed the suit on the ground that a single suit cannot be brought for arrears due in respect of separate holdings. This decree having been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred. The first contention urged before us is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 45 of the Code ...
The Maharaja of Benares Vs. Sadho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All12
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree made upon a compromise. The decree directs sale of certain property which was hypothecated by the appellants as sureties for a lessee. It further directs that in the event of the proceeds of the sale not being sufficient for the discharge of the debt, the defendants would be personally liable for the balance due. The hypothecated property has been sold, but as the proceeds of the sale did not satisfy the decree, the present application was made for the arrest of the judgment debtors. It was opposed on the ground that the decree-holder ought to obtain a decree under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that he had already made an application for such a decree, which was disallowed, and that the rejection of that application is a bar to the present application. This objection has been overruled by the Court below, but it has been repeated in the appeal before us. In our judgment th...
Abadi Begam Vs. Alim-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR29All10
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act from an order of the District Judge appointing the respondent, the mother of three minors of tender years, guardian of their persons and property. The appellant is a paternal uncle of the minors, and claims to have a preferential right to be appointed their guardian. He has no right to be appointed guardian of the persons of the minors, two of whom are girls, and the third is a boy of six. As regards the guardianship of the property, the paternal uncle has no legal right under the Muhammadan law to the guardianship of the property of the minors any more than the mother--see Shaikh Alimodeed Moallem v. Musammat Syfoora Bibee (1866) 6 W.R., M.R., 125 and Tagore Law Lectures, 1873, p. 479. The sole question therefore to be considered is whether it would be for the welfare of the minors to appoint the appellant, their uncle, as guardian of their property rather than their mother. Having regard to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›