Allahabad Court January 1909 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.
Sheo Karan Singh and ors. Vs. Parbhu NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.211
1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen His Highness the Maharaja of Benares sued for arrears of rent, relying on a kabuliat, dated the 7th of December 1899, executed by the defendants and registered on the 8th of December 1899.2. By the kabuliat the rent reserved for the holding was an annual sum of Rs. 4,701 and the term of the lease was 9 years. The defendants were let into possession of the property on the faith of the kabuliat. No lease was executed by the plaintiff. In the plaint the plaintiff sets out the terms of the kabuliat and says that in accordance with the agreement entered into thereunder the sum which he claimed was due. The defendants in their written statement did. not deny that a tenancy subsisted between them and the plaintiff, but they rained, various objections to portions of the claim. In a supplementary written statement, however, they pleaded this defence, namely that 'a mere kabuliat without there being a, lease is not sufficient to constitute a con...
Daria Vs. Harkhial and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.208
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The village in question formerly consisted of several thoks, one of which was thok Jaroli. Thok Jaroli consisted of several pattis. The property in dispute was situate in patti Khera of Thok Jaroli. In this thok that plaintiff was a co-sharer. The Wajib-ul-arz of the village gave a right of preemption to five classes of pre-emptors. With the first two classes we are not concerned. The third class consists of snare-holders in a patti, the fourth, sharers in a thok, and the fifth share-holders in the village. In the year 1305 Falsi Thok Jaroli was by perfect partition divided into several mahals out of which is mahal Harkhial and Dalipa. By the new arrangement the property sought to be pre-empted and the property of the plaintiff fell in mahal Harkhial and Dalipa. The defendant-appellant is not a co-sharer in mahal Harkhial and Dalipa, but is the owner of mahal Chander Sen, one of the mahals of the old thok Jaroli. It thus appears that...
Harkhial and anr. Vs. Daria
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All274
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The village in question formerly consisted of several thoks, one of which was thok Jaroli. Thok Jaroli consisted of several pattis. The property in dispute was situate in patti Khera of thok Jaroli. In this thok the plaintiff was a co-sharer. The wajib-ul-arz of the village gave a right of preemption to five classes of pre emptors. With the first two classes we are not concerned. The third class consists of shareholders in a patti, the fourth, sharers in a thok, and the fifth share-holders in the village. In the year 1305 Fasli thok Jaroli was by, perfect partition divided into several mahals one of which is mahal Harkhial and Dalipa. By the new arrangement the property sought to be pre-empted and the property of the plaintiff fell in mahal Harkhial and Dalipa. The defendant appellant is not a co-sharer in mahal Harkhial and Dalipa but is the owner of mahal Chandersen, one of the mahals of the o...
Dilawar Khan Vs. Bhawani Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All253
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff respondent in this second appeal claims to be co-sharer to the extent of one half share in a patti which consists of 5 biswas in mahal Alaidapur. Mahal Alaidapur consists of two pattis, one the patti just mentioned above, and the second a patti of 15 biswas.2. Upon plaintiff's instituting the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for his share of the profits which accrued duo and payable on account of the years 1309 to 1311 Fasli, the defendant, now appellant, pleaded inter alia that certain plots which originally formed part of the 15 biswa patti, had been wrongly included in the 5 biswa patti. If these plots were taken out, it would be found that the respondent was entitled to no profits in the years in dispute. The suit was instituted on the 11th day of April, 1905, in the court of the Assistant Collector. This officer without framing any issue upon the plea above mentioned, as raised by the appellant, gave the respondent on the 10th of May 1905, a d...
Jagan Nath Prasad Vs. Mulchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All262
Aikman, J.1. This is a reference by the Taxing Officer, under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act. In Execution Second Appeal No. 1143 of 1907 a Bench of this Court referred certain issues for trial by the court below. An application was presented by the appellant in that case for a review of the interlocutory order referring these issues, The application was presented on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2. The official charged with the duty of checking the court-fee reported that the application was insufficiently stamped on the ground that the proper court-fee on the application was the fee leviable on the memorandum of appeal. The Taxing Officer accepted this view, but considering the question be one of general importance, made a reference regarding it under Section 5. It is no doubt true that the application is an application for a review of judgment and that judgment is defined as meaning the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order. But in my opinion neither Article 4...
Bajilal Vs. Gobardhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All265
Aikman, J.1. The appellant Baji Lal sued to foreclose a mortgage. As a condition precedent to foreclosure, the court below held that the appellant was bound to redeem a prior mortgage by payment of a sum of Rs. 5,941-6-5. Baji Lal has appealed against this portion of the decree and the office reported that the memorandum of appeal should bear an ad valorem fee on this amount. The Taxing Officer took the same view, but has referred the case under Section 5. It is not easy to reconcile all the decisions cited but in my opinion the later decisions support the view taken by the office. That view is in accord with the ratio decidendi in Nepal Rai v. Debi Prasad Weekley Notes 1905 p. 40.2. In a reference under Section 5 in Jhandu Mal v. Himmat second appeal of 1907 from the decree of the Additional Judge of Meerut, the learned Judge who disposed of the reference said: The appellant plaintiff seeks by this appeal to get rid of a liability imposed on him by the decree under appeal to pay off K...
Gobindi Vs. Saheb Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All257
George Knox, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:The appellant Musammat Gobindi was plaintiff in the court of first instance. She brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover Rs. 397, principal and interest, on account of profits for the years 1310, 1311 and 1312 Fasli. She alleged that her share in the village Lahra was half, and that the defendants respondents owned the other half. The respondents replied that she had not correctly given the extent of her share, that under an arbitration award which had been made a decree of court, 73 bighas 3 biswas were given to her out of 89 bighas, 2 biswas, half of a 3 biswas haqiat in khata khewat No. 6 of mauza Lahra. Other matters were also urged in reply. But we are not concerned with those at present. The court of first instance held (hut the appellant's share was half 3 biswas as recorded in the khewat, refused to go behind the recorded share, and decreed profits in her favour in proportion to t...
Muhammad HusaIn Vs. Ghulam HusaIn and anr. and Muhammad Wali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All271
George Knox and Griffin, JJ.1. The subject-matter in dispute in this appeal is a house situated in Budaun. The plaintiff sued for possession but in his plaint added a further prayer that any other relief to which he might be entitled be granted to him. One of the defences and the only one with which we are now concerned, was that as the plaintiff's mother acting for him had granted a lease to certain third person, the plaintiff could not sue for immediate possession inasmuch as the lease was a lease for one year and this period had not determined at the time when the suit was brought. The Court of first instance sustained this plea but in appeal the District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim immediate possession. He accordingly reversed the order of the Munsif and remanded the case for determination on the merits under Section 562 of the former Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants who were in actual possession have come to this Court and again raise the plea that u...
Gobindi Vs. Saheb Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.885
George Knox, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:The appellant Musammat Gobindi was plaintiff in the Court of first instance. She brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover Rs. 397, principal and interest, on account of profits for the years 1310, 1311 and 1312 F. She alleged that her share in the village Lahra was half, and that the defendants respondents owned the other half. The respondents replied that she had not correctly given the extent of her share, that under an arbitration award which had been made a decree of Court, 73 bighas 3 biswas wore given to her out of 89 bighas 2 biswas, half of a 3 biswas haqiat in khata, khewat No. (5 of mauza Lahra. Other matters were also urged in reply. But we are not concerned with those at present. The Court of first instance held that the appellant's share was half 3 biswas as recorded in the khewat, refused to go behind the recorded share, and decreed profits in her favour in proportion to this...
Bhawani Singh Vs. Dilawar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.886
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiff respondent in this second appeal claims to be co-sharer to the extent 'of one half share in a patti which consists of 5 biswas in mahal Alaidapur.2. Mahal Alaidapur consists of two pattis, one the patti just mentioned above, and the second a patti of 15 biswas.3. Upon plaintiff's instituting the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for his share of the profits which accrued due and payable on account of the years 1309 to 1311 Fasli, the defendant now appellant, pleaded inter alia that certain plots which originally formed part of the 15 biswa patti, had been wrongly included in the 5 biswa patti. If these plots were taken out, it would be found that the respondent was entitled to no profits in the years in dispute.4. The suit was instituted on the 11th day of April 1905, in the Court of the Assistant Collector. This officer without framing any issue upon the plea above mentioned, as raised by the appellant, gave the respondent on the 10th of May 1905, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »