Allahabad Court May 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.
Har Parshad and ors. Vs. Lala Radha Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.490
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house. The plaintiffs are the zemindars of mahal sufed in the village of Nekpur, which is a suburb of the town of Bareilly. The defendant No. 2 Baldu is an agricultural tenant residing in a house situated on the village site. On the 16th of July 1906 he sold to the defendant No. 1 Radha Kishun a two-thirds share in the house for the sum of Rs. 655-12-6 and placed him in possession thereof. Plaintiffs alleging that Baldu had no right to transfer any interest in the land, in fact had no right to transfer any thing beyond the materials of his house, sought to eject him and defendant No. 1 therefrom and to gain possession of both house and land, The suit as brought was in respect of the whole of the house. The defendant No. 1 in reply set up a custom in the village whereby a tenant is supposed to have a right to transfer not only the materials of his house but also an interest in the land, presumably a right of residence therein. The ...
Syid Murtaza HusaIn Vs. Musammat Alhan Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.671
Karamat Husain, J.1. Musammat Alhan Bibi brought an action for the recovery of her share in the landed property of her deceased husband and sought other reliefs also. One of the pleas in defence was that she, as a widow governed by the Shia Law, was not entitled to any share in the landed property loft by her husband. Both the Courts decreed the claim, remarking that no authority was cited to support the plea in defence. The defendant Murtaza Husain has preferred a second appeal to this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the plaintiff as a Shia widow has no share in the landed property left by her husband. Alhan is not a childless widow and admittedly has a daughter Abida Bibi by her deceased husband.2. There certainly is a difference of opinion among the Doctors of the Shia Law regarding the right of a widow who has a child by her deceased husband and is governed by the Shia Law to have a share in the landed property left by her deceased husband. The author of the Sharaia is...
Pusa Mal Vs. Makdum Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All514; 3Ind.Cas.566
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of a house and Rs. 47-4-0 arrears of rent thereof for the period commencing from 17th October, 1904, and ending 17th January, 1907.2. The facts are as follows: On April 17th, 1887, the plaintiff's father Bhopal Dass leased this house to one Jhargarh, brother of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and father of defendant No. 3 for a fixed period of one year at a monthly rental of Rs. 1-12. After the expiry of the term of this lease the lessee continued to hold over without the express assent or dissent of the lessor. He paid no rent.3. On the 18th February, 1895, the plaintiff brought a suit for rent against Jhargarh in the Small Cause Court for a period commencing from September, 1892, up to the date of the suit.4. Jhargarh contested the suit on the ground that he had held adverse possession of the house for over 30 years and denied having executed the so-called kirayanama and having paid any rent.5. The plaint was returned by t...
Mamraj Alias Mamua Vs. Ramji Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.177
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated the 5th of January, 1897, executed by Nain Singh defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On the 3rd of August, 1896, Nain Singh had mortgaged the same property to Umrao Singh alias Sandu Mal. On the 14th of September, 1900, Nain Singh sold his equity of redemption to the appellant, Mamraj, for Rs. 900. Out of the consideration for the sale a sum of Rs. 745 was left with the vendee for payment to Umrao Singh, the first mortgagee. He has satisfied that mortgage and his contention in this case is that the plaintiffs must pay him that amount before they can bring to sale the property mortgaged to them. This objection was overruled by the Court of first instance which relied on the case of Baij Nath v. Murli Dhar A.W.N. (1907) 85 : 4 A.L.J. 349, The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. Hence this appeal by Mamraj alias Mamua, on the ground that he is entitled to hold up the amount paid b...
Jhau Lal and anr. Vs. Pir Bakhsh and anr. and Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.453
1. This case has been referred to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly with the recommendation that the conviction of the two accused, Beni Ram and Jhau Lal, be set aside as also the order passed under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing' them to furnish security to keep the peace. The learned Judge was of opinion that the Magistrate took action under Section 190, Clause (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was,' therefore, bound to adopt the procedure laid down in Section 191 of that Code. We are of opinion that action was taken by the Magistrate not under Clause (c) of Section 190, but under Clause (a) of that section as a complaint was made to the Magistrate of facts which constituted the offence of which the accused were convicted. In the petition of complaint filed by Pir Bakhsh and Mangal it was stated that the accused were interfering with persons who came to sell cattle and had assaulted them as well as the complainants. This petition was made ...
Musammat Dhanpati Vs. Jokhan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.401
1. The present appeal is from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipore whereby he returned a plaint, which had been presented to his Court, with directions to the plaintiff to present it to the Court of Revenue. The plaintiff comes in appeal here and contends that the suit as instituted by her is cognisable by a Civil Court. The plaint is a wrong rambling plaint, full of a great deal of irrelevant matter, one which should have been challenged by the Munsarim of the Court and should have been given back to the plaintiff to be purged of the irrelevant matter. Had this been done, it is possible that the Court below would have acted differently from the way which it has acted. The subjectmatter of dispute is described in the plaint as a fixed rate holding. The plaintiff claimed to be the heiress of Gopal Ahir who, she says, was sharer and owner in possession of half the fixed rate holding. The father died in 1900 and his widow entered into possession by right of inheritance wi...
Birj Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Sarup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.632
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage which was decreed by the Court of first instance but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that according to the recent decision of the Privy Council it was barred by 12 years' rule of limitation. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal and it is contended on his behalf that having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of Act IX of 1908 the suit ought to be heard and should not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Mr. Haribans Sahai on behalf of the respondent has addressed to us an ingenious argument to the effect that the first paragraph of Section 31 does not apply to appeals instituted before the date of the passing of the Act. 'We are unable to agree with his contention. The language of the section is very clear. The section provides that no suit for foreclosure or sale instituted within a period of sixty years and pending at the date of the passing of the Act 'either in a Court of first i...
Dudh Nath Dube and ors. Vs. Lallu Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.855
1. The firsts 2 grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal have been withdrawn and we have only to consider the 3rd ground which is to the effect that the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 is the record of a contract and not the record of custom. The plaintiffs came into Court and asked for a decree in their favour and based their right to it upon the custom of pre-emption that had been in vogue in the village from time immemorial. In the written statement the defendants deny the fact. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion upon evidence that the custom of pre-emption did exist in the village. We have nothing further to do in this appeal than to consider the wajib-ul-arz and to decide whether the Court below placed a wrong interpretation on its terms. We have been referred to certain unreported cases in which it is said by the learned Vakil for the appellants, that the words of the wajib-ul-arz relied on were exactor the same as the words in the wajib-ul-arz now before us and that those wo...
Mahadeo Prashad and anr. Vs. Ramdhari Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.455
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Jagga Rai, an occupancy tenant, made a will in favour of his grandson (nawasa). After the death of Jagga Rai his widow took possession of his occupancy holding. On her death Jaggu Rai's grandson applied for the correction of the jamdbandi and for the entry of his name. The application was opposed by the zamindars on the ground that Ramdhari Khan did not share in the cultivation during the lifetime of the tenants and was not, therefore, entitled to succeed. I may note here that the plaint of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen shows that not only Ramdhari Khan but other defendants also applied for the correction of jamabandi. The first Court rejected the application for the correction of the jamabaridi. On appeal the Collector granted it and the order of the Collector was confirmed by the Commissioner. The zamindars then brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and prayed for the cancellation of the will and for possession of the holding. Th...
Bank Instalment Company Limited in Liquidation Vs. Muhammad Abdulla Kh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All495
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent who is the official liquidator of the Bank Instalment Company Limited, Meerut, to recover the sum of Rs. 954-9-0 from the appellant. The plaint as first presented showed that the plaintiff at first based his claim on a promissory note for Rs. 1,500 payable on demand with interest. The promissory note is dated the 8th of June 1896. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was alleged that certain sums of money paid on different dates had been paid towards principal and interest. Paragraph 3 of the plaint was however amended and in the amendment, the plaintiff further alleged that on the 25th of May 1906, the present appellant Abdullah Khan had agreed in writing to pay the amount of the balance due within the period of one month, that this one month's grace was granted to him but the money had not been paid, and hence a cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff on 25th of June 1906, on which date the period o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »