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.
Govind Chandra Das Vs. Radha Kristo Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All477
George Knox, C.J. and Griffin, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is one Gobind Chandra Das. In the plaint he states that he and the defendants are members of a joint Hindu family of which Radha Kristo Das the eldest brother is the head and managing member. Gobind Chandra Das and Radha Kristo Das are brothers; the remaining defendants are the sons of Radha Kristo Das. He states that the immoveable property scheduled in the plaint had been purchased by the defendant No. 1 with family funds left by the ancestors, that the parties ore in joint possession and he asks that he might be put in possession of a half share of the property. In addition he also sets out in the schedule attached to the plaint a great quantity of moveable property, cash, ornaments, bonds and other household articles, all of which according to him fire in the joint possession of the members of the joint family and he asks to be put in possession of a half share of the moveable property also. The defendants put in a jo...
Ramjimal Vs. Chaudhri Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.515
George Knox, A.C.J.1. We see no reason to interfere. The learned Judge of the Court put a correct interpretation on the clause in the compromise embodied in the decree of the 23rd December, 1904. The appeal is dismissed with costs including foes on the higher scale....
Gobind Chandra Das Vs. Radha Kristo Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.563
1. The appellant in this appeal is one Gobind Chandra Das. In the plaint he states that he and the defendants are members of a joint Hindu family of which Radha Kristo Das the eldest brother is the head and managing member. Gobind Chandra Das and Radha Kristo Das are brothers; the remaining defendants are the sons of Radha Kristo Das. He states that the immovable property scheduled in the plaint had been purchased by the defendant No. 1 with family funds left by the ancestors, that the parties are in joint possession and he asks that he might be put in possession of a half share of the property, In addition he also sets out in the schedule attached to the plaint a great quantity of movable property, cash, ornaments, bonds and other household articles, all of which according to him are in the joint possession of the members of the joint family and he asks to be put in possession of a half share of the movable property also. The defendants put in a joint defence in which they state that ...
Naunihal Singh Vs. Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All412
Atkinson, J.1. In this case the respondent, Chaudhri Naunihal Singh, the only son of Chaudhri Nirmal Singh, deceased, on the 28th September 1900, instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, a suit in the nature of an ejectment against the appellant, Musammat Parbati, widow of his paternal uncle, Chaudhri Dalip Singh, deceased, to recover possession of the lands fully described in the schedule attached to his plaint and for other relief.2. He based his right to the relief he sought on two alleged facts, (1) that his late father and his late uncle, Dalip Singh were the two male members of a joint Hindu family of which he (the plaintiff) was the surviving male, and (2) that the property which was sought to be recovered belonged to that family jointly.3. The defendant resisted this claim on the ground, among others, that all the joint family property had, by agreement between the then existing members of the family, been partitioned in interest in the year 1801, though not...
Bhup Singh and ors. Vs. Tundpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.383
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption and the main question is whether the plaintiffs have priority of right over the defendant vendee. The property sold is situate in khata khewat No. 53, patti Budh Singh. The plaintiffs are co-sharers in khata khewat No. 54 and the vendee is a co-sharer in khata khewat No. 56 of the same patti. The plaintiffs claim priority on the ground that they are related to the vendor as found by the Court below, and that under the terms of the wajib-ul-arz they have a preferential right to pre-empt. The wajib-ul-arz provides for four classes of pre-emptors : first own brother; second hissadar jaddi who holds a share in the zamindari; third hissadar patti, and fourth hissadar in another thole of the patti. As I have said above it has been found that the plaintiffs and the vendor are descended from the same common ancestor. It is admitted that they are hissadars, that is, co-sharers in the zamindari. They, therefore, clearly answer to the...
Manram Singh Vs. Bhola Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.625
Karamat Husain, J.1. Pirbhu Singh, maternal grandfather of Manram Singh, defendant No. 1, executed a perpetual lease on the 19th of April 1881, in favour of Dal-ganjan Singh, father of the plaintiff and Timal Singh and Mukhai Singh, of the property in suit. In 1892 Manram Singh defendant No. 1 applied for the ejectment of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The case was compromised and it was agreed that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 would remain in possession of the property. Manram Singh defendant No. 1 again applied for the correction of the jamabandi and compromised with the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the 16th of December 1901, to the effect that they would be recorded as occupancy holders of one-half and he (the defendant No. 1) would be recorded as sir holder of the other half. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 20th of May 1907 for the cancelment of the compromise, dated the 16th December 1901, on the allegation that it was made behind his back and without his con...
Ram Sumer Misir Vs. Ajudhia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All454
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Ram Sumer Misir, respondent, for possession of property which once belonged to one Sheo Narain. He also asks for a declaration that two mortgages, one effected by the widow of Sheo Narain, and the other by his daughter, be declared ineffectual as against his rights, being mortgages without legal necessity. He further claims mesne profits. Sheo Narain died many years ago and his property came into the possession of his widow, Mummmat Sughanda. He had a daughter, Musammat Chaura, and the plaintiff Ram Sumer Misir is the son of Musammat Chaura's daughter. Musammat Sughanda made a mortgage in 1860 in favour of Hanuman Misir, the grandfather of the defendants appellants. In 1883, after Sughanda's death, Musammat Chaura, who succeeded to the property, executed another mortgage in favour of Ajudhia, the defendant. Chaura died on the 20th of April, 1905, and thereupon the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by ...
Ajudhiya and anr. Vs. Ram Sumer Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.376
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Ram Sumer Misir, respondent, for possession of property which once belonged to one Sheo Narain. He also asks for a declaration that two mortgages, one effected by the widow of Sheo Narain and the other by his daughter, be declared ineffectual as against his rights, being mortgages without legal necessity. He further claims mesne profits. Sheo Narain died many years ago and his property came into the possession of his widow Musammat Sughanda. He had a daughter Musammat Chaura and the plaintiff Ram Sumer Misir is the son of Musammat Chaura's daughter. Musammat Sughanda made a mortgage in 1860 in favour of Hanuman Misir, the grandfather of the defendants-appellants. In 1883 after Sughanda's death Musammat Chaura who succeeded to the property executed another mortgage in favour of Ajudhia, the defendant. Chaura died on the 20th of April 1905, and thereupon the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff as mentioned above...
Muhammad Ewaz Ali Khan Vs. Maheshar Parshad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All394
Atkinson, J.1. The matter in controversy in these two consolidated appeals is the right of one Muhammad Ewaz Ali Khan (hereinafter called 'the Taluqdar') to recover possession, either in the Civil Courts or in a Revenue Court, of a village situate within the ambit of his taluq, named Gadaria, from the present holders, Maheshar Pershad Shukul and Hargopal Shukul, a minor under the guardianship of Maheshar Parshad, named in the proceedings 'the Shukuls.' The two main, if not the only, questions for their Lordships' decision are (1) the proper construction of the 13th Rule in the Schedule of Rules attached to the Oudh Sub-Settlement Act, No. XXVI of 1866, and (2) the proper construction of a certain order or decree made on the 6th of January 1869, by L. Barrow, Financial Commissioner, in a suit or proceeding in which one Bhairon Shukul, the predecessor of the present holders, prayed as against Rani Sadha Bibi to be entitled to a pucca lease of the said village with other lands.2. The case...
King-emperor Vs. Hingu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All453
Richards and Alston, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Mirzapur suggesting that the order of a Magistrate of the first class, purporting to Act under Sections 133, 134 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be set aside. The facts are shortly as follows. The Magistrate having received information, (which we will assume was sufficient within the meaning of Section 133) that a certain public way was obstructed by a chabutra constructed by Hingu, made a conditional order requiring Hingu to remove the alleged obstruction or appear and move to have the order set aside or modified. Hingu appeared, and the Magistrate being of opinion that the duty lay upon Hingu to show that the conditional order Was not justified, called upon him to produce evidence. Hingu Hid produce three witnesses. The learned Magistrate considered their evidence of no weight, and at once made his conditional order absolute. Hingu applied to the Sessions Judge in revision, one of the grounds ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »