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.
Debi Saran Pande Vs. Ramjas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: (1909)ILR31All541
Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit brought by the plaintiff appellant is cognizable by the Civil Court. The suit was brought under the following circumstances: On the 4th of May 1904, the defendants first party applied for partition of the village Majhana Baikuuth, alleging that the whole village was joint. The plaintiff preferred an objection to the effect that an imperfect partition of the village had been made in 1846, under which kuras Nos. 1 and 3 were allotted to the defendants first party and kura No. 2 to the plaintiff and defendants second party, that khata No. 28 was common to the whole village and that kura No. 2 was the exclusive property of the plaintiff and ought to be excluded from partition. The Revenue Court referred the plaintiff to the Civil Court and thereupon he brought a suit for a declaration that kura No. 2 was his exclusive property. On the 31st of March 1906, he obtained a decree from the court of the Subordi...
Debi Saran Vs. Ramjas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.982
1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant is cognizable by the Civil Court. The suit was brought under the following circumstances. On the 4th of May 1904 the defendants first party applied for partition of the village Majhana Baikunth alleging that the whole village was joint. The plaintiff preferred an objection to the effect that an imperfect partition of the village had been made in 1846 under which kuras Nos. 1 and 3 were allotted to the defendants first party and kura No. 2 to the plaintiff and defendants second party, that khata No. 28 was common to the whole village; and that kura No. 2 was the exclusive property of the plaintiff and ought to be excluded from partition. The Revenue Court referred the plaintiff to the Civil Court and thereupon he brought a suit for a declaration that kura No. 2 was his exclusive property. On the 31st of March 1906 he obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge declaring that k...
Tota Ram Vs. Musammat Sahodra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.988
Karamat Husain, J.1. Tota Ram applied for partition of his mahal. The 14th of September 1907 was fixed for. objections. No objection was taken on or before that day by any one. Musammat Sahodra on the 14th November 1907 presented an application praying that the land entered therein may be recorded as her haquiat mutafariqa and be formed into a patti. She was not a recorded co-sharer. Besides this application she had made an application for the correction of the jamabandi to the Tahsildar which application was also transferred to the Assistant Collector to whom the application for partition had been made. The Assistant Collector ordered that the order dated the 7th April 1898 be carried out, that the entries be made accordingly, that the land in claim be recorded as the petitioner's haquiat mutfarriqa, that in the fard taksim it be recorded as such in the separate possession of the petitioner and that the same order be regarded as the order passed on the application foe the correction o...
Musammat Hazari Dulaiya Vs. Janki
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.6
Tudball, J.1. It is impossible to support the judgment of the Court below in this case. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of a half share of the estate left by her deceased husband one Bason. He died in the year 1891 leaving him surviving the plaintiff his widow and Musammat Sobrani his mother. The names of these ladies were entered in the-revenue papers in place of that of Basori, In 1901 Musammat Sobrani died. As the defendant took possession of a half share of; the estate of Basori after the death of his mother, the plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of the half share and for mesne profits. The claim was resisted on the ground that according to a custom' prevailing among Jains Parwar, to which class the parties belong, the estate of a person who died childless Was inherited in equal shares by his mother and his widow in absolute right; that according to this custom Musammat Sobrani succeeded to a half share of...
Shib Lal Vs. Ram Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.88
Alston, J.1. The main question, in this appeal related to the right of privacy. The plaintiff's case was that the defend;-ant, by building a second story to his house and making windows therein from which the plaintiff's house could be overlooked, had invaded his privacy. The defendant's reply was that the privacy of the plaintiff's house had not been invaded and that pardah was not observed in the plaintiff's house. On these pleadings the Munsif framed the following issue: 'Has the defendant erected any now junglas or windows and do they interfere with the plaintiff's right of privacy; and has plaintiff's house been enjoying a right of privacy.'2. Upon this issue evidence was given. Some of the evidence went to show that the plaintiff's house was overlooked from the roofs of other houses. The Munsif 's finding on this point, after an inspection of the locality, was, ''there are a few Kothas from the roofs whereof the plaintiff's house is visible.' In appeal the learned Judge accepted ...
Bhagauti Tiwari Vs. Chandan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.4
Tudball, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: One Bhagwati Pande describing himself as a Tiwari brought a suit to recover certain property as heir of the deceased husband of Musammat Lakhpati. The suit was resisted by one Gaya Pande who claimed to be the mortgagee of the property (2) by his brother Chandan Pande who claimed to be a donee of the whole from the Musammat and (3) by two other persons Tulshi Pande and Parawa Dischhit who were subsequently made defendants on their own application and claimed to have an interest in the property. On the 13th of March 1907 a compromise in writing was filed in Court which purported to settle the dispute between the various claimants. A decree was passed in terms of that compromise. On the 5th of October 1907 Chandan Pande plaintiff-respondent to this appeal brought his suit to set aside the compromise and the decree based there on as having been obtained by fraud and 'also for a declaration that Bhagwati...
Aman Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Musammat Nazimannissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.19
Karamat Husain, J.1. The plaintiff Musamimat Nazimunnisa instituted a suit against the defendants. The main relief she sought was that her. right may be established, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 may be dispossessed,. the new constructions made by them may be demolished and she (the plaintiff) may be awarded possession of the house situate in enclosure No. 78, couprising 2 biswas and 2 biswansis of land in mouza Shahnagar. The defence was that the house had fallen into ruins more than twelve years before the, institution of the suit 'that, the site had lapsed to the zamindar who gave it to the defendants and that they built the house on the site granted to them by the zamindar. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed 'to the lower appellate Court and one of the pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal to that Court was that the plaintiff and her ancestress are the owners of the house and are in possession of the site of the house which has fallen down'. The...
Mata DIn Vs. Kashi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.461
Karamat Husain, J.1. Certain plots of sir land were sold under a sale-deed dated the 5th October 1906. The plaintiff instituted a suit for pre-emption on the basis of the wajib-ul-arz which according to him gave him a right of pre-emption on the sale of sir land. The Court of first instance decreed the claim, bat the lower appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the sale of the sir land in question conferred no right, under the terms of the wujib-ul-arz, upon the plaintiff to pre-empt. The plaintiff has preferred a second appeal and his learned Counsel, on the authority of Safdar Ali v. Dost Muhammad 12 A. 426; Ali Hussain Khan v. Tasadduq Husain Khan 28 A. 124 : A.W.N. (1905) 219 : 2 A.L.J. 612; Inayat Husain v. Aminuddin Ahmed A.W.N.(1888); 182 contends that the sale of the sir land is tentamount to a sale of a share in the mahal. The learned Vakil for the respondent on the authority of Sital Prasad v. Amtul Bibi 7 A. 633; Husain Bukhsh v. Damar Singh A.W.N. (1904) 118...
Angad Singh Vs. Srinath Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.403
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit by Babu Srinath Das against Babu Bijai Bahadur Singh and his father Babu Angad Singh for the recovery of money. In the first paragraph of the plaint it is alleged that the two defendant s are joint.2. Paragraph 3 of the plaint is translated as follows:On the 9th May 1906, the defendants borrowed Rs. 300 from the plaintiff at the Court of the Collector and caused defendant No. 1 to execute a stamped note of hand. They covenanted that they would pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem. Paragraph 4 states that subsequently the defendants borrowed Rs. 200 from the plaintiff on the first of June 1906 and caused defendant No. 1 to execute a note of hand bearing a stamp label of the value of 1 anna. They covenanted that they would pay interest at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem. In paragraph 6 it is alleged that the plaintiff sent a notice to defendant No. 1 by way of demand of money on the 11th of July 1907 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›