Allahabad Court June 1909 Judgments
Jahan Singh and ors. Vs. Daryao Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All539
George Knox, Kt., C.J. and Griffin, J.1. The facts which gave rise to the suit out of which this appeal has sprung are briefly as follows: One Mukhtar Singh who held a share in village Hisanda on the 28th November 1905, exchanged that share for a share of property held by Daryao Singh the present appellant in village Billochpura. Jahan Singh and Sarup Singh minor under the guardianship of his brother Jahan Singh, claimed that in consequence of this exchange, a right of pre-emption arise in their favour. They base their right of pre-emption upon the wujib-ul-arz of 1860 in which they maintain that in every case of transfer by a co-hirer, a preferential right of pre-emption exists in favour of own brothers or other 'ekjaddi' relatives. Jahan Singh and Sarup Singh are admittedly the own brothers of Mukhtar Singh. In defence it was contended that the provision in the wajib-ul-arz relating to pre-emption was the record of a-contract not of custom and that it came to an end when the settleme...
Tag this Judgment!Daryao Singh Vs. Jahan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.903
1. The facts which gave rise to the suit out of which this appeal has sprung are briefly as follows: One Mukhtar Singh who held a share in village Hisanda on the 28th November, 1905, exchanged that share for a share of property held by Daryao Singh the present appellant in village Billochpura. Jahan Singh, and Sarup Singh minor under the guardianship of his brother Jahan Singh, claimed that in consequence of this exchange, a right of preemption arose in their favour. They base their right of pre-emption upon the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 in which they mainu in that in every case of transfer by a co-share', a preferential right of pre-emption exists in favour of own brothers or other 'ekjaddi' relatives. Jahan Singh and Sarup Singh are admittedly the own brothers of Mukhtar Singh. In defence it was contended that the provision in the wajib-ul-arz relating to preemption was the record of a contract not of custom and that it came to an end when the Settlement of 1870 determined. It was further...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu Vs. Harnand, Sheo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All533
George Knox, Kt., C.J.Tif Missing Page No. 533 to 539...
Tag this Judgment!Harnand and ors. Vs. Kalloo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.2
George Knox, A.C.J.1. It will be sufficient for the decision of this Letters Patent Appeal to say that after hearing all that could be said on behalf of the appellants, I fully agree with the decision arrived at by my learned brother with the reasons which he has given for that decision. In the course of the arguments my attention was drawn to an unreported decision of this Court F.A.F.O. 135 of 1899 Tota v. Sheo Narain, decided on 15th June 1899. I was one of the Judges who decided that case and I wish clearly to state that on a more careful consideration of the question at issue in that case, which was the same as the question at issue in this case, I am not prepared to adhere to what I then said and held. The reason for my decision in that case was mainly that in the record-of-rights prepared in 1890, no mention was made of the right of pre-emption, while there had been mention of the right in the record-of-rights prepared at the Settlement of 1863. From the silence in the record-of...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Nand and anr. Vs. Khema and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.8
This matter has been referred to us under Rule 17 of the Kamaon Rules. The suit was a suit to establish the plaintiffs' right to a three-fourths share in what has been admitted to be a hereditary office within the meaning of Article 124 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877. The defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court of first appeal found that the defendant had been receiving the entire profits of the office for upwards of 12 years prior to 1899. It also found that the defendant had been performing all the duties connected with the office. As an inference from these facts it found that the defendant had been in adverse possession. In our judgment this was an inference of fac which the Court of first appeal was entitled (sic) draw. Having stated so much we proceed to answer the several questions referred to us.1. In our opinion the suit is governed by Article 124 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877, and by no other article. This has...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Vs. Jagan Nath Prashad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.630
Griffin, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit brought for redemption of a mortgage dated the 30th September 1881. The defence was that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the fact that in the year 1902 plaintiff and another person had instituted a similar suit for redemption of the same mortgage which suit had been dismissed under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act XIV of 1882, for default of prosecution. Both the Courts below have held that the suit was maintainable and have decreed the plaintiff's suit. On behalf of the appellant I have been referred to the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act XIV of 1882, which provides that when a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Section 102, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. It has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the parties to all interests and purposes are the same as in th...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshri Vs. Bhawani Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.855a
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for preemption based upon a Wajib-ul-arz dated the 2nd September, 1870, The clause relating to pre-emption divides the pre-emptors into three classes (1) hissadaran qaribi, (2) hissa-daran patti, (3) hissadaran deh. The property sold is situated in the patti No. 17. The pre-emptor and the vendor are co-sharers in patti No. 15. The pattis Nos. 15, 16 and 17, according to the finding of the learned Munsif are in patti Zorawar Singh. The vendee is a blood relation of the vendor and a co-sharer in the deh. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim holding that the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption superior to that of the defendant. According to the learned Munsif the expression 'hissadar qaribi' means blood relation. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the learned Munsif and held that the expression 'hissadar qaribi' meant a co-sharer who is nearer in space than others, i.e., a co-sharer in the same sub-division of the patti. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Jani Durlabh Shankarji and ors. Vs. Jani Lajja Shankarji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.858
1. This is an appeal from an order passed under Section 518 of Act XIV of 1832 amending an award of arbitrators. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that as the Court has already passed a preliminary decree in. the suits an appeal does not lie from the order under Section 518. We are unable to accede to this contention. Section 588 Clause (26) allows an appeal from an order under Section 518 modifying an award. The fact that on the date on 'which the Court passed an order modifying the award it finally decided the suit and made a decree, cannot take away the right of appeal which the law confers on a party. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection.2. On the merits of the case we think the appeal is without substance. The suit was one for partition and three issues were determined by the Court itself. There were several other issues which had also to be determined and as regards these the parties agreed that they should be referred to th...
Tag this Judgment!Rohan Singh Vs. Bhau Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All530
Richards and Alston, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale which gave rise to the alleged right took place on the 11th of September 1903. The present suit was instituted on the 10th of September 1904. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the 22nd of December 1904, on the sole ground that the court-fee paid was insufficient. The District Judge confirmed this decree of the court of first instance on the 11th April 1905. On the 25th of March 1907 the High Court set aside the decrees of both the lower courts, holding that the court-fee was sufficient, and remanded the case to be disposed of on the merits. The only evidence of the custom of pre-emption was an extract from the wajib-ul-arz which provided that if any co-sharer wanted to dispose of his share, he must in the first instance offer it to a co-sharer, and' then he might sell it to a stranger.. For the purpose of this appeal we must consider that at the time of the sale and' of the...
Tag this Judgment!Rohan Singh Vs. Bhao Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.42
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale which gave rise to the alleged right took place on the 11th of September 1903. The present suit was instituted on the 10th of September 1904. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the 22nd of December 1904 on the sole ground that the Court-fee paid was insufficient. The District Judge confirmed this decree of the Court of first instance on 11th April 1905. On the 25th of March 1907 the High Court set aside the decrees of both the lower Courts holding that the Court fee was sufficient and. remanded the case to be disposed of on the merits. The only evidence of the custom of pre-emption was an extract from the wajih-ul-arz which provided that if any co-sharer wanted to dispose of his share he must in the first instance offer it to a co-sharer and then he might sell it to a stranger. For the purposes of this appeal we must consider that at the time of the sale and of the institution of the suit and also ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »