Allahabad Court July 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.
Santokh NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. the Collector of Ghazipur, Manager o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.557
1. This appeal arises out of a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge dated 25th August 1908, dismissing the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. We here wish to record our grave disapproval of the conduct of the Subordinate Judge. The plaint was presented on the 23rd of May 1907. If the plaint was regular it is admitted that the suit was then within time. The Munsarim reported that the Court-fee paid was sufficient and that the plaint was presented in time.2. The plaint was duly registered. The learned Subordinate Judge subsequently decided that the plaint was not properly stamped. The plaint had been stamped on the basis of 10 times the Government revenue. The learned Judge thought that the Court-fee ought to have been fixed on the market value, but he gave time to the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency. The deficiency was made good within the time allowed. We may here point oat that it is by no means quite clear that the decision of the learned Judge on the qu...
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Lala Narsing Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.615
Tudball, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are these:The parties are neighbours, their houses adjoining. The defendant-appellant's house lies north of that of the plaintiff-respondent. In the year 1896 the latter building was the property of a person from whom the plaintiff has subsequently purchased. Both houses then were single storied buildings. The northern boundary of the southern house was the south wall of the northern house. Between this wall and the actual building of the southern house was an open bit of land, forming a courtyard of the latter. On this bit of land two water-spouts discharged the rain water which fell upon the roof of the defendant's house.2. The plaintiff's vendor wished to extend his building up to the wall of his neighbour and to support the roof of the extension by fixing his beams into the defendant's wall. He appears to have approached his neighbour and they came to an agreement evidenced by the document of 10th March, 1896. ...
Ram Harakh Tewari and ors. Vs. Ishardat Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.558
Karamat Husain, J.1. Dullam Bahelia sold a portion of a grove under a sale-deed, dated the 4th of October 1907. He was a tenant, of the aforesaid grove and the plaintiffs who are the zamindars of the village in which the grove is situate brought a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed and for the possession of the portion of the grove sold. They in paragraph No. 4 of their plaint alleged that according to the general law in these, provinces they were the owners of the trees and in paragraph No. 6 they added that Dullam Bahelia died without issue in November 1907, and that they as zamindars were entitled to possession in proportion to their share. Among the pleas taken in defence were the following: The first was that according to the village custom the tenants have power to transfer the groves and trees' planted by them, and the second was that Musammat Dilmani, the mother of Dullam Bahelia, was alive and that the suit, therefore, was bad for non-joinder of parties. The Court of f...
Chaudhri Daryoo Singh Vs. Bharat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.562
OPINION1. The question which has been referred to this Bench is what is the proper Court-fee in a pre-emption suit, when the property in respect of which pre-emption is claimed is already subject to a usufructuary mortgage which the pre-emptor does not seek to disturb.'2. The material facts are shortly as follow: The plaintiff claimed to pre-empt a sale of the equity of redemption in certain property. The sale was made on the 3rd December 1906 by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the other defendants. The sale consideration as stated in the deed was Rs. 20,000 but the plaintiff alleged that the real consideration was Rs. 5,000. The property was mortgaged in 1877 by way of usufructuary mortgage to secure Rs. 79,000. The plaintiff does not seek possession of the land. He admits that possession must remain in the hands of the usufructuary mortgagee until the mortgage is redeemed. He came into Court seeking merely to enforce his right to pre-empt the equity of redemption. He paid a Court-fee ...
Akbar Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All610
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the additional Judge of Meerut, refusing to entertain an application for review of judgment. The application for review was made on the ground that by an oversight the court which decided the case had omitted to insert in the final order contained in the judgment a direction for the decretal of the claim in respect of house property in Batrara and some other property. The decree in the case was drawn up in accordance with the judgment and omitted these two items of property. An application for review was accordingly made to the court below for the correction of the error which, it was alleged, had crept into the judgment and the decree. The learned Judge of the court below refused to entertain the application on the ground 'that it cannot lie, while applicant's appeal on exactly opposite allegations is lying in the High Court.' It appears that in a subsequent suit the question arose, whether the plaintiff was entitled to ...
Musammat Dropati Bibi and anr. Vs. Babu Ram Rajpal Rai Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.31
1. The facts of this case are these. On the 24th of December 1898 Chuni Lal, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs-appellants, obtained a money-decree against Sham Lal, Luchmi Narain and others. In the suit in which that decree was passed an application had been made for attachment before judgment and in pursuance of that application certain shops were attached on the 11th of June 1898. Several applications wore made for execution of the decree but they were infructuous. Finally the plaintiffs applied for sale of the attached shops. The defendant Ram Rich pal thereupon preferred an objection and on his objection being allowed on the 15th of September 1906, the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs, on the 17th of May 1907, for a declaration that the shops in question were liable to sale in execution of their decree. The title set up by Ram Richpal was acquired by him under the following circumstances One Musammat Janki obtained a decree against Lac...
Sukhram and anr. Vs. Udai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.85
Karamat Husain, J.1. Though no pedigree showing the relation of the parties is given anywhere, yet it seems that Bhagirath, Parshadi Lal and Dhani Ram wore brothers, that Musammat Kishna was the widow of Bhagirath, and that Musammat Naraini was Kishna's daughter. Sita Ram and Sukh Ram are the sons of Parshadi Lal, and Duli Chand and Hiraman are the sons of Dhani Ram. Bhagirath was the owner of certain property, a portion of which is now in dispute. On his death his widow, Musammat Kishna, took possession of all his property. On the 9th of November 1891 Musammat Kishna executed sale-doeds of the portions of the property which she had got from her husband : one' in favour of her daughter, Musammat Naraini another in favour of Sita Ram and Sukh Ram sons of Parshadi Lal, and the thrift in favour of Duli Chand and Hiraman, sons of Dhani Ram. Musammat Naraini died 10 or 11 years before the institution of this suit, and her husband Udai Ram took possession of the property transferred to her b...
Bhikari Das Vs. Shib Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.91
George Knox, A.C.J.1. Bhekari Das, who describes himself as zamindar of mahal Bhekari Das in mouza Khizirpur in the District of Mainpuri, is the plaintiff in this suit out of Which this appeal arises. He instituted this suit to enforce a right of pre-emption which' lib claimed in his own favour as against one Shib Lal who is admittedly a stranger to the mahal. The land which is the subject-matter of dispute is certain land sold by two persons Gulab Singh and Chet Singh in favour of Shib Lal. According to Bhikhari Das, Gulab Singh and Chet Singh are co-sharers in mahal Bhekari Das and according to the wajib-ul-arz Bhekari Das claims that ho has a right of pre-emption over the land. The portion of the wajib-ul-arz which governs the case runs as follows:Dastur dar Kab haq shuffa-Dawa haq shuffa kadar surat intqal haqiat hissadar bazariya bai wa rahen sewai hiba ke, awal bhai bhetije haqiqia wphir bhai chachazad Shank haquiat,' our phir Shurkiyan patti aur phir Shurkiyan thok, azan bad dee...
Musammat Nanhi Bahu Vs. Dhunde
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.908
1. This case was referred by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi with a view to having the acquittal of one Dhunde set aside. The learned Judge of this Court before whom the reference came, considered that on the face of the referring order a good case for interference was shown. He accordingly issued notice to Dhunde to show cause why his acquittal should not be set aside. Dhunde has been represented to-day by Mr. Girdhari Lal Agarwala who has shown cause. Dhunde was tried by a Deputy Magistrate on a charge under Section 406, Indian Panal Code, and was acquitted, not because the Magistrate believed that there had been no misappropriation but because he considered, that the evidence showed that the com plainant had agreed to give the accused time to re-pay the money. The Magistrate held, upon the authority of a ruling of the Nizamat Adalat, that it is an accepted principle of law that a person cannot in a case such as this agree to accept the money, and at the same time reserve the ri...
Jagmohan Singh and anr. Vs. Sarju Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.40
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption claimed solely on the basis of custom. The plaintiffs pleaded that under the custom set forth in the zamima khewat for 1294 fasli, (corresponding to the years 1884 and 1885) they, being relations and nearer co-sharers to the vendor, were entitled to pre-empt. They also contested the amount of consideration set forth in the sale-deed. The defence was that there was no custom the plaintiffs had no preferential right and that the amount of consideration as set forth in the sale-deed was correct. The Court of first instance held that the custom was, proved, the plaintiffs had preferential right and that the true consideration was Rs. 1,511-6-0. The defendants appealed to the lower appellate Court and the plaintiffs filed objections. The learned District Judge held that the entry in zamima khewat having been made by the Settlement Officer in excess of his powers as such was of no evidential value and this being...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »