Allahabad Court April 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.
Muhammad MohsIn Khan Vs. Turab Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.163
1. The only question in this appeal is as to the correctness of the principle upon which damages were estimated by the Courts below. The suit was one for damages for the wrongful cutting and conversion of the crops of the plaintiff. The damages in such a case is the loss sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the removal and conversion of his crops, calculated on the market-value of the crops, It was the duty of the Courts below to ascertain what was the value of the crops which were so removed. The learned Subordinate Judge in this judgment refers to the conflicting nature of the oral testimony of witnesses on both sides, the plaintiff's witnesses exaggerating and the defendants underrating the quantity of the produce. 'The plaintiff', he says, 'assessed the damages on the ground of the produce having been 20 maunds per bigha, which was the maximum produce which the land was capable of producing. The defendants on the other hand alleged that the produce was only 9 maunds per bigha'. ...
Sheolal Singh Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All368
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for arrears of rent against Sukhdeo Singh, respondent. It appears that in 1894 Ram Lai Singh the father of Sukhdeo Singh, executed a usufructuary mortgage of his zamindari and air lands in favour of Sheo Lal, plaintiff, and Rai Madan Makund, defendant. On the day following that of the mortgage 'Sukhdeo Singh executed a kabuliat in favour of the mortgagees in respect of the sir lands undertaking to pay a rent of Rs. 112 per annum for the occupation of it. As Rai Madan Makund did not join in the suit the plaintiff claimed his share of the rent in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 194 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The court of first instance decreed the claim but the lower appellate court modified that decree, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the rent mentioned in the kabuliat but only to such rent as an exproprietary tenant was liable to pay. T...
Sheo Lal Singh Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.462
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for arrears of rent against Sukhdeo Singh, respondent. It appears that in 1894 Ram Lal Singh, the father of Sukhdeo Singh, executed a usufructuary mortgage of his zamindari and sir lands in favour of Sheo Lal, plaintiff, and Rai Madan Makund, defendant. On the day following that of the mortgage Sukhdeo Singh executed a kahuliat in favour of the mortgagees in respect of the sir lands undertaking to pay a rent of Rs. 112 per annum for the occupation of it. As Rai Madan Makund did not join in the suit the plaintiff claimed his share of rent in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 194 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The Court of first instance decreed the claim, but the lower appellate Court modified that decree, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the rent mentioned in the kabuliat, but only to such rent as an exproprietary tenant was liable to pay. This decree has been affirmed by the learn...
Rani Raghubir Kunwar Vs. Rao Girraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All429
John Stanley, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal raises an important question under the Indian Limitation Act. The suit out of which it arises was instituted by the plaintiff respondent on the 31st of March, 1904, for the recovery of Rs. 3,52,180-2-5 alleged to have been due to her by her father Rao Umrao Singh at the time of his death in respect of the income of the plaintiff's estate, known as the Sahanpur estate, received by him under a power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff sought to recover this amount out of the family property known as the Kuchesar estate, which was owned and possessed by Rao Umrao Singh and his family.2. The court below gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 2,17,840.4-2 with future interest from the 31st of March, 1904, up to the date of realisation, to be recovered by attachment and sale of the property held jointly by Rao Umrao Singh and the defendants who are now owners of and in possession of the Kuchesar estate. From th...
Shibba and ors. Vs. Dalpat and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.115
Richards, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of two rooms and some other premises which are alleged in the plaint to bear the house No. 396 inside an enclosure No. 2.02. It appears that in 1896 the enclosure with the buildings was partitioned between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and a number of other persons who were entitled. The partition led to a great deal of confusion, and there has been a great deal of litigation not only between the plaintiffs and defendants, but also between other persons entitled. There is no doubt now that what fell to the lot of the plaintiffs was No. 396 in the partition map. In the year 1898, shortly after the partition, the present plaintiffs sued the present defendants for possession of two corners, which are part of No. 396. The plaintiffs did not sue in 1898 for that portion of No. 396, which they now sue for. The plaintiffs alleged in their claim that they had been dispossessed of the premises now sued for some years ago. The Court below...
Rao Girraj Singh and ors. Vs. Rani Raghubir Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.118
1. This appeal raises an important question under the Indian Limitation Act. The suit out of which it arises was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on the 31st of March 1904 for the recovery of Rs. 3,52,180-2-5 alleged to have been due to her by her father, Rao Umrao Singh, at the time of his death in respect of the income of the plaintiff's estate known as the Sahanpur Estate, received by him under a power-of-attorney executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff sought to recover this amount out of the family property known as the Kuchesar Estate, which was owned and possessed by Rao Umrao Singh and his family.2. The Court below gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 2,17,840-4-2 with future interest from the 31st of March 1904 up to the date of realization to be recovered by attachment and sale of the property held jointly by Rao Umrao Singh and the defendants, who are now owners and in possession of the Kuchesar Estate. From this decree the present appeal has been preferr...
Munshi Makund Sarup Vs. Musammat Sarvi Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.65
1. This is a suit for the preemption, of a sale of half shares in three villages carried out by a sale-deed of the 15th of June 1905, in favour of the defendant-appellant Makund Sarup. The consideration mentioned in the sale-deed is Rs. 28,000. The villages comprised in it are Moiyapur, Phulehra and Shahzadpur Kananee. It is admitted that the plaintiffs pre-emptors have no interest in the villages of Moiyapur and Phulehra, but the Court below has given them a decree for pre-emption of these as well as of the third village, on the ground, as stated by it that the sale was jointly made and the properties and their price 'could not be separated'. The Court below was clearly in error in the view which it took. The plaintiffs having no shares in Moiyapur and Phulehra, are not entitled to pre-empt the sale of those villages. The learned Subordinate Judge's error was this: A pre-emptor is bound to claim pre-emption of all the property over which his right of pre-emption exists he cannot choos...
Kali Shankar Vs. Nawab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All507
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale brought upon three mortgages. The first of these is dated the 25th of June 1894, and is for Rs. 6,200, the second dated the 30th of March 1895, is for Rs. 3,000 and the 3rd is dated the 8th of July 1895, and is for Rs. 2,000. The suit was brought not only against the mortgagor bat also against his sons and grandsons. The latter contested the claim and urged that their interests in the mortgaged property could not be affected by the mortgages.2. The court below found in respect of the first mortgage of the 8th of July 1895, that necessity for incurring the loan, for the benefit of the joint family had been established and made a decree for the amount of that mortgage to be realised by sale of the mortgaged property. As regards this part of the decree there is no controversy in this appeal.3. As regards the second mortgage, namely, that of the 30th of March 1895, the court below was of opinion that although, the debt was not tainted...
ishtiaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Saiyid Massaod Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.508
1. This was a suit instituted by four Muhammadans under the provisions of Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs alleged that there had been a dedication by the Moghul Emperors to the shrine of Hazrat Abul Maoli Saheb, that the defendants were the Superintendents or Managers of the waqf and as such bound to spend the entire income on the expenses of the shrine, that they had dishonestly appropriated a greater part of the income of the waqf property to themselves, spending only a small sum on the purposes of the waqf, and permitted the shrine and houses appurtaining to it to fall into ruin. They prayed that the Court might appoint new managers and vest the property in the persons so appointed, that the Court might also require the defendants to render an account of the income and expenditure for five years preceding the institution of the suit, and that necessary rules should be made for the management of the waqf property. The original grant is not forthcoming, but ...
Kali Shankar Vs. Nawab Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.909
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit; for sale brought upon three mortgages. The first of these is dated the 25th of June, 1894,, and is for Rs. 6,200, the second dated the 30th of March, 1895, is for Rs. 3,000 and the third is dated the 8th of July, 1895, and is for Rs. 2,000. The suit was brought not-only against the mortgagor but also against his sons and grandsons. The latter contested: the claim and urged that their interests in the mortgaged property could not be affected by the mortgages.2. The Court below found in respect of the first mortgage of the 8th of July, 1895, that necessity for incurring the loan for the benefit of the joint family had been established and made a decree for the amount of that mortgage to be realised by sale of the mortgaged, property. As regards this part of the decree there is no controversy in this appeal.3. As regards the second mortgage, namely, that of the 30th of March, 1895, the Court below was of opinion that although the debt was no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »