Allahabad Court December 1908 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.
Biba Jan Vs. Kalb HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All136; 1Ind.Cas.763
Richards and Griffin, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to set aside a waqfnama, dated the 2nd of November, 1902, executed by one Musammat Najiban, and for possession of a half share in property dealt with by the waqfnama, and for mesne profits. The plaintiff alleged that the execution of the deed was brought about by the undue influence of Kalb Husain, that Najiban was insane when she executed the deed and that no valid endowment had been created (1) because the objects were not legal, and (2) because the endowment was illusory and really made for the benefit of Kalb Husain and his brother Ataullah, the mutawallis appointed by the waqfnama. This appeal is closely connected with First Appeal No. 341 of 1906 decide on the 27th November 1908, and also with another, First Appeal No. 340 of 1906, which it has been unnecessary for us to decide inasmuch as the parties compromised it. The evidence in all these cases was by consent read en evidence in each case. The two connected appeals ...
Kesho Ram Vs. Ajudhia Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.82
1. This is an appeal from an order of remand made by the lower Appellate Court in a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption. The suit was based upon the administration papers of the village. The Court of first instance held that these documents were the records of a contract in force during the period of settlement, and that the settlement having come to an end the contract was no longer in existence. It accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the documents were records of a custom and remanded the case to the Munsif for disposal on the merits. The defendant vendee comes here in appeal and we have to decide which of the Courts below took the correct view of the two wajib-ul-arzes which were put in.2. After hearing the case fu(sic) argued and referring to the terms of the documents we are of opinion that the view of The first Court is right. The first wajib-ul-arz was one drawn up in 1862. In our opinion it is impossible to construe ...
Kandhia Lal Vs. Manki
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.143
1. The respondent, Musammat Manki, obtained from the District Judge Letters of Administration fox the estate of her deceased husband on condition of her giving a bond together with a surety for the due collection, getting in and administering the estate. The appellant Kandhia Lal became surety for her. Less than six months afterwards the appellant asked the District Judge to cancel the surety bond which he had given and to call upon Musammat Manki to furnish a fresh surety. The District Judge rejected this application. The appellant comes here in appeal. The Courts of Calcutta and Madras are at variance as to whether a surety bond given under the circumstances stated can be cancelled. See Raj Narain Mookerjee v. Ful Kumari Debi 29 C. 68 and Suhroya Chetty v. Ragammall 28 M. 161. The former Court held that a surety bond given under the circumstances stated, is a continuing guarantee within the meaning of Section 129 of the Contract Act and may be revoked in regard to future transactions...
Jagannath Vs. Dibbo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.818
1. This was a suit to enforce a mortgage, dated the 6th of September, 1884. The defence was that the mortgage was without consideration, that the mortgagors bad no power to mortgage the property and that the suit was barred by limitation. The admitted facts are that at the date of the mortgage one Musammat Shibbo was in possession as a. Hindu widow, having succeeded her husband, one Bhola, who died childless. A number of transfers have since been made. Some of the defendants are the transferees of Musammat Shibbo and some are transferees of Tota Ram and Har Sukh, the mortgagors named in the mortgage deed. The mortgage deed bears interest at the rate of 37 1/2 per cent. per annum. Musammat Shibbo died on the 5th of October, 1888, and no proceedings were taken until the institution of the present suit on the 18th of January, 1906. The Court below has found that the deed was fictitious and that no consideration passed. The mortgage deed was registered, and it appears from the endorsement ...
Muhammad Umar Daraz Khan Vs. Maru and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.821
Karamat Hussain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the zamindar against his tenants for the recovery of possession of a plot of land and the demolition of the building erected thereon. The defence with which I am concerned in this appeal was that as the house was built with, the knowledge of the plaintiff's karinda, who never prevented the defendants from building, and as the defendants spent about Rs. 300 thereon, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the site and to have the building pulled down.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decree, finding that the house was built with the acquiescence of the local representative of the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal to this Court. As no issue was framed by the Court of first instance on the plea of equitable estoppel and no finding recorded thereon, I referred the following issue to the lower appellate Court for trial und...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›