Allahabad Court August 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.
Bachi Lal and anr. Vs. Lal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.819
1. This appeal arises out of an order of remand. The matter in dispute between the parties was whether or not the custom of pre-emption prevailed in a certain village. The Court of first instance found that there was no custom in the village of the right of pre-emption and that all that existed was a contract, recorded in 1872, which came to an end with the settlement. The District Judge after comparing the words contained in the wajib-ul-arz of 1833 with the terms of the wajib-ul-arz prepared at the Settlement of 1872, held that the terms contained in both the wajib-ul-arzes afforded sufficient proof of a custom of pre-emption existing in the village. He accordingly set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and remanded the case for further trial. In appeal before us it is contended that the learned District Judge has put a wrong interpretation upon the words contained in the wajib-ul-arzes and that when the two are read together there is so much difference between their ter...
Gopal Singh and anr. Vs. Ganga Prashad Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.827
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought in respect of a sale made on the 23rd of October, 1906, The vendee is an outsider to the village. The plaintiff owns a share in the village but not in the mahal in which the property in question is situate. He relies upon the wajib-ul-arz of 1289 Fasti, which provides that a co-sharer wishing to sell his share must sell it first to brothers who are also co-sharers, second to hissadars in the patti, third to the lambardar of the patti, fourth to the lambardar of the village, fifth to a co-sharer in the village. At the time when this wajib-ul-arz was prepared the village was an imperfect pattidari village. It consisted of pattis but no mahals and the whole co-parcenary body were jointly responsible for the payment of the revenue and a common bond existed between them. At the time of the preparation of the wajib-ul. arz a partition was in progress but it was completed subsequently. The wajih-ul-an was prepared in the course of re...
Harbans Tiwari Vs. Tota Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.735
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption which has been dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of parties and cause of action. The facts are these: On the 12th of April 1904, four persons viz: Rajman Tiwari, Rajmangal Tiwari, Musammat Gajra and Bechan Tiwari executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant Mohar Ali Khan. When the sale-deed was presented for registration, doubts arose as to whether Bechan was of fall .'age and, therefore, it was registered at the instance of Rajman Tiwari, Rajmangal Tiwari and. Musammat Gajra only. It was thus a valid sale of the 3/4 the share of the property owned by the three persons, mentioned above. On the 13th September, 1.906, Bechan Tiwari sold to the same vendee the remaining 1/4th share. In respect of both these sales the plaintiff Harbans Tiwari brought the present suit for pre-emption on the basis of custom alleging that he was entitled to preempt the property. The defendants to the suit were the four vendors, the vendee and one Tot...
Chittar Mal and anr. Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.261
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants to recover from the defendants-respondents Rs. 1,235-15-6 as the balance of an account existing between the parties. The allegations of the plaintiffs are that an account of dealings between them and the defendants was opened on Maghsar Sudi 9th, Sambat 1956, corresponding to the 11th of December, 1899, that on the 13th of August, 1904 the account was stated by the parties and a balance of Rs. 2,394-9-3 was struck in favour of the plaintiffs, that subsequently the plaintiffs realised Rs. 1,479-10-6 on account of the price of wheat sold by them for the defendants, and the defendants were debited with the sum of Rs. 312-14-0 on account of interest and other charges and that the amount claimed was due by them. The defendants asserted that they had no dealings with the plaintiffs and denied that any account was stated or that any sum was due by them. The Court of first instance found in favour of the d...
Telu Ram and ors. Vs. Raja Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.722
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of an alleged custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz. It was urged by the defendants that the entry in the wajib-ul-arz was the record of a contract and not of a custom. The Court of first instance held that it evidenced a custom and decreed the claim. The decree of that Court was reversed by the lower appellate Court on the finding that the wajib-ul-arz recorded a contract and not a custom.2. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether the wajib-ul-arz records a contract or a custom. It has been repeatedly held that as regards claims for pre-emption each case must be decided on the terms of the particular wajib-ul-arz and on the circumstances of the case. Clause (6) of the wajib-ul-arz of 1867, which is the wajib-ul-arz relied upon, lays down that if, a co-sharer wishes to transfer his share he should do so first to a share-holder khewat and on his refusal to a share-holder in the village. It ...
Jamna Dat Vs. Bishnath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.817
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows:On the 11th June 1903, a decree was passed. The first application for execution was made on the 4th of December 1906. A notice tinder Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued on that application. The serving officer reported that the judgment-debtor was dead. The decree-holder got his application struck off for default. He made the second application on the 12th of December 1908. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes came to the conclusion that the second application was barred by time. In support of this proposition the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes relied on the case of Madho Prasad v. Kesho Prasad 19 A. 337. The decree-holder has applied for the revision of the order of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that the period of limitation, under Clause 5 of article 179 of the second Schedule to the Limitation Act (XV of 1877) begins to run from the date of the issuing of notice under Sectio...
Meharban Singh and ors. Vs. Umrai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.709
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs are admittedly recorded as having the proprietary right entitling them to institute the suit. The Court below, how ever, was of opinion that they were not in possession of the property of which they were recorded as the proprietors and dismissed the suit. Section 201 of the Tenancy Act provides (1) for the case of a plaintiff who is not recorded and (2) for the case of a plaintiff who is recorded. In the case of a plain-tiff who is recorded the section provides that the Court 'shall presume' that he has proprietary title according to the record. The effect of this provision has been before this Court for consideration on several occasions. The views which I hold will be found fully set forth in the ruling; Bechan Singh v. Karan Singh 30 A. 447 : A.W.N. (1908). 186 : 5 A.L.J. 495. I am quite satisfied that the Revenue Court before whom a suit comes under the provisions of Chapter XI of t...
Tajammul HusaIn Khan Vs. Nawabdad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.830
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was first instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Kaimganj. The plaint was presented to that Court on the 28th of (September 1904. It so happened that the period of limitation prescribed for the suit expired on the 29th of September 1904. The Munsarim of the Munsif's Court on the 23th of September 1904 reported inter alia that the Court-fee affixed to the plaint was sufficient and the Munsif on that report ordered that the plaint be registered as a suit.' Doubt arose whether the case was within the jurisdiction of the Munsif having regard to the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The Munsif directed an enquiry to be held in which he had the aid of the Tahsildar and came to the conclusion that the value of the subject-matter was one beyond his jurisdiction. He accordingly on the 30th of November 1904, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. By the following day the plaintiff presented the plaint in the Court of the Sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›