Allahabad Court March 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.
Abdul Latif Khan and anr. Vs. Niyaz Ahmed Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All343
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two of the legal representatives of one Musammat Akbari, deceased, for a portion of her alleged dower. Musammat Akbari was married to the defendant on the 5th of February 1906. She died on the 28th of December 1906, before consummation of the marriage. The plaintiff states that the amount pf her dower was Rs. 20, 000, that as the marriage was not consummated only one-half of that amount is payable by the husband, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a half of that half, namely to Rs. 5,000. This sum the plaintiffs seek to recover in this suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and the decree of that court was affirmed by the lower appellate court. It has been found by the learned Judge that at the time of her marriage Musammat Akbari was suffering from a serious illness which prevented consummation of the marriage and that she died of that illness. It has also been found that the defen...
Abdul Latif Khan and anr. Vs. Niyaz Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.538
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two of the legal representatives of one Mnsammat Akbari, deceased, for a portion of her alleged dower. Musammat Akbari was married to the defendant on the 5th of February 1906. She died on the 28th of December 1906, before consummation of the marriage. The plaintiff states that the amount of her dower was Rs. 20,000, that, as the marriage was not consummated, only one-half of that amount is payable by the husband, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a half of that half, namely to Rs. 5,000. This sum the plaintiffs seek to recover in this suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and the decree of that Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. It has been found by the learned Judge that at the time of her marriage Musammat Akbari was suffering from a serious illness which prevented consummation of the marriage and that she died of that illness. It has also been found that the defendant, her husband, was not aware that ...
B. and N.W. Railway Vs. Bandhu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All342; 2Ind.Cas.223
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Munsif of Gorakhpur, under the provisions of Section 195 of-the Tenancy Act. From the reference it appears that the defendant was authorised by the plaintiff company under a written document to enter upon part of the railway embankment and cut grass therefrom. The suit was brought by the Railway company to recover the price of the grass and the learned Munsif was doubtful as to whether he had jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Munsif was doubtful whether the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of that expression in the Tenancy Act and as to whether or not the return agreed to be made by the defendant for the appropriation of the grass on the embankment was not rent within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. We are of opinion that the defendant in not a tenant of the plaintiff company within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. He ha...
Har Sahai Vs. Mukkarram Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.505
Aikman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for redemption. On the 20th of March 1880, an 8 biswa share in village Rampura was mortgaged to Ram Lal, On the 5th of June 1880, a second mortgage of a 3 biswa share out of the 8 biswas was mortgaged to the respondent. The prior mortgagee brought a suit on his mortgage and got a decree for sale. He did not make the puisne mortgagee a party. In execution of the decree under the first mortgage the 8 biswa share was purchased by the appellant Har Sahai. The respondent brought a suit on his second mortgage and got a decree for sale on the 30th of June 1885. The appellant got possession of the share he had purchased on the 20th of August 1885. The puisne mortgagee did not make the prior mortgagee a party to his suit nor did he make the auction-purchaser Har Sahai a party. It is not shown that at the time when the respondent brought his suit the auction-purchaser had acquired any interest in the property or that if he h...
Genda Mal and ors. Vs. Ilahi Buksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.510
Richards, J.1. This was a suit to redeem two usufructuary mortgages dated respectively the 4th of September 1839 and the 21st September 1839. A sub-mortgage was made on the 25th July 1890. I shall assume for the purposes of my judgment that the plaintiffs are the persons who in the events which have happened, and subject to the question of limitation would be the persons entitled to redeem. The defendants are the representatives of the original usufructuary mortgagee and the sub-mortgagees or their representatives (except the defendant No. 14 who has been made a pro forma defendant, because he would not join in the suit). The suit was not instituted until the 9th of April 1906 and having regard to the date of the mortgages it is quite clear that the suit would be barred by limitation unless there was a sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of Act XV of 1877. Both the Courts below have decided that there was no such acknowledgment and dismissed the suit. The sole qu...
inayat Ullah Khan Vs. Khuda Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.665
George Knox, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Inayat Ullah Khan. He sets out in his plaint that he is the zamindar and that the defendants-respondents are occupancy tenants of a certain grove. The respondents have prevailed upon the Settlement Court to expunge the name of the plaintiff from the khewat as regards the plot of land in dispute and to enter that of the respondents. As he considers this prejudicial to his rights he has brought the present suit to have it declared that he is the owner of the land in question. It may be noted that no-where in the plaint does the appellant express any wish to eject the respondents from the land. He alleged that they are his tenants and so far as the present suit goes he is content that they should remain so. In defence the respondents denied plaintiff's title, set up title in themselves, denied possession of the plaintiff and contended that Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act operated as a bar to his claim. Both the...
Musammat Tirpati Kuwar Vs. Musammat Partapi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.465
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Mirzapur dated 29th July 1908, whereby he rejected the application of one Musammat Tirpati Kuwar praying that she might be appointed guardian of the property of her minor son. The lower Court holding that it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the boy Murlidhar was alive at the date when the application was made refused to grant certificate of guardianship. It also thought that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be appointed guardian. It appears from the arguments addressed to us and the evidence that the boy Murlidhar was alive in December 1907. He was then kidnapped and there is nothing to show what has become of him. Even so, we think that the Judge was wrong in presuming that Murlidhar was dead. It is to the advantage of Murlidhar that a guardian be appointed of his property. The applicant is the mother of Murlidhar and though a plea is urged that Musammat Tirpati Kuwar's conduct is not above...
Babu Gopi Kishun and anr. Vs. Babu Isri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.504
Richards, J.1. This was a suit for pre-emption. The wajib-ul-arz which applied to the village before partition gave a right of preemption first to the hissadar karibi, then to hissadar thok and then to hissadaran of other thoks. At the time of the wajib-ul-arz the village was divided into two thoks. The village has since been partitioned into six mahals by a perfect partition. One mahal has been sold. The plaintiffs would have been co-sharers in one of the thoks if partition had never taken place. The defendant vendor is a stranger. The plaintiffs are now co-sharers in one of the six mahals into which the village was divided, but they are not co-sharers in the mahal which is the subject of the sale. The Court of First Instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The appellants rely on the case of Janki and others v. Ram Partap Singh 28 A. 286. In that case there had also been a partition, but the wajib-ul-arz gave a right of pre-emption, first t...
Kundan Lal Vs. Murari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All339
Richards and Karamat Husain, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover possession of certain shops. The plaintiff claims under, a will of one Hargu Lal. The defendants are the persons who would have succeeded to the property but for the will. Hargu Lal had one son named Sant Lal, who predeceased him leaving a widow, Musammat Sukhi. Musammat Sukhi had four daughters, Musammat Sendho, Musammat Gendu, Musammat Chuna and Musammat Baso. The plaintiff is the son of Musammat Baso. The will is dated the 12th of April 1898, and it commences by reciting that the testator had made a will in favour of Sant Lal. It then goes on to say that all his property/moveable and immoveable, is to remain his own during his life and that afterwards Musammat Sukhi was to be the malik of all property. It then sets out that Musammat Sukhi has adopted Kundan Lal with his approval with all due formalities and that on the death of Musammat Sukbi Kundan Lal will succeed her. After the death of Kundan Lal Musammat Baso was to ...
Murari Lal and anr. Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1909
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.687
1. This was a suit to recover possession of certain shops. The plaintiff claims under a Will of one Hargu Lal. The defendants are the persons, who would have succeeded to the property but for the Will. Hargu Lal had one son named Sant Lal, who predeceased him leaving a widow Musammat Sukhi. Musammat Sukhi had four daughters Musammat Sendho, Musammat Gendo, Musammat Chunia and Musammat Baso. The plaintiff is the son of Musammat Baso. The will is dated the 12th of April 1898, and it commences by reciting that the testator had made a Will in favour of Sant Lal. It then goes on to say that all his property, movable and immovable, is to remain his own during his life and that afterwards Musammat Sukhi was to be the Malik of all property. It then sets out that Musammat Sukhi has adopted Kundan Lal with his approval with all due formalities and that on the death of Musammat Sukhi, Kundan Lal will succeed her. After the death of Kundan Lal, Musammat Baso was to succeed. The will then concludes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »