Allahabad Court January 1910 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.
Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Musammat Aziman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.294
Piggott, J.1. In this suit, Musammat Aziman, daughter of Fazal Hussain, claimed from the defendants who were the heirs of Fazal Hussain, under a Will, arrears of maintenance due to her under the provisions of the said Will. She had previously brought a suit in which she claimed a share in the inheritance of her father under the Mohammadan Law, and repudiated the Will under which she claims in the present suit. The only point which has been pressed before me in this appeal is that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. This plea was not taken in the first appellate Court, but I have allowed the claim to be argued before me, on the authority of the cases reported in Muhammad Ismail v. Chatter Singh 4 A. 69 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Suraj Kuart 21 A. 446.2. On the question itself, I was referred to two cases, one of which, Srimut Rajah Moottoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya v. Katama Natchiar 11 M.I.A. 50 : 10 W.R. 1 (P.C.) is, in my opinion, only remotel...
Sri Maharaja Prabhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Sarju Misr and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.330
Piggott, J.1. In these three connected cases, the plaintiff appellant has authorised certain pleaders to file three suits on his behalf. It is now admitted that the limitation period for the filing of the said suits expired on the 18th February 1908. It is proved that the pleaders concerned came to the proper Court, that of the Munsif of Benares, on the evening of February 17th 1908, after the presiding officer and his Munsarim had both left the Courts, that is to say, at an hour when the Court was closed for the day, and there was no person present having authority to receive the plaints. It would appear that the pleaders themselves were acting under the mistaken belief that the period of limitation for the suits in question expired on February 17th, 1908 and not on the day following. They succeeded in persuading the suits clerk to receive the plaints, and on the following morning the suits clerk handed them to the Munsarim. The latter evidently shared the mistake of the pleaders with...
Musammat Maktula and anr. Vs. Kauleshwar Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.482
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Ajudhia Pande was the owner of the property in suit. After his death, the names of his widow, Musammat Genda and that of his uncle's widow Musammat Phulmati were entered in the revenue papers. After Phulmati's death, Genda alone transferred the property in dispute to Maktula and Balram, father of Bishunath. According to the allegation of the plaintiffs the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs on the 15th of July 1907. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted a suit on the 4th of October 1907. According to the frame of the suit it was a suit for possession and for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the property. The defence was that the defendants were in possession of the property as owners, that the sale-deed executed by Genda was not real and genuine, and that, if genuine, it was without legal, necessity. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that as the names of the defendants appeared in the revenue papers before the revision of the last ...
Brijpal Saran and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.180
OREDERRichards, J.1. This is an application in revision to set aside the order of the Joint Magistrate of Moradabad and the order of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad confirming the conviction, but reducing the fine to a sum of Rs. 150 each. The prosecution was brought under Section 62 of Act II of 1899. Clause (b) of Sub-section (i) of that section provides that 'any person executing or signing otherwise than as a witness any other instrument chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped shall for every such offence be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees.' It appears that in the year 1901 certain persons, members of the same family, submitted disputes about the division of the family property to the arbitration of another member of the same family, namely, Brij Bhukhan Saran. This gentleman duly made and published his award, which was acted upon by the parties. There are witnesses to the award, persons who signed expressly in that capacity. Immediate...
Murlidhar Vs. Musammat Goma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.210
1. This second appeal arises out of execution proceedings consequent upon a decree obtained under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act. Part of the property covered by the decree was purchased by one Musammat Goma, respondent, after the decree had been passed. In due time an order absolute -was obtained by the decree-holder and on his proceeding to get the Court to sell the property, Musammat Goma put in an application asking that the portion of the property which has been purchased by her and which is known and described as lot No. 1 might be brought to sale after the portion held by the original mortgagors, which was known and marked as lot No. 2 had been sold. The application made by her was allowed by the Court on the 30th of July 1908. In the meanwhile other litigation was proceeding and the result of that litigation was that it was held that the mortgagors Munni and Chunni had no title. The decree-holder again asking for the sale of the whole of the property covered by the ...
Kashi Ram and ors. Vs. Musammat Amri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.207
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of property which formerly belonged to one Gangadan.2. Gangadan was one of the two sons of Salig Ram, Sheo Lal being the other. Gargadan had a son named Khushal Ram, who died in his father's life-time, leaving a widow Musammat Ishri, him surviving. The other son of Salig Ram, namely, Sheo Lal, had a son named Narain Das and his wife was one Musammat Amri, a defendant in the suit. Gangadan died in the year 1882 or 1883 leaving his daughter-in-law Musammat Ishri him surviving, who upon his death entered into possession of his property and continued in, possession until the year 1899 when she died.3. It has been found by the Court below, and there is no controversy as to this, that Musnnmat Ishri acquired an absolute title to tb'3 property of Gangadan by adverse possession. The plaintiffs claiming to be the nearest reversionary heirs of Musammat Ishri instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of possessio...
Pandit Ram Krishna Vs. Shiam Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.278
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for possession of a house, which, as the judgment of the Court of first instance shows, included the site on which the house stood. The learned Munsif framed the folio wing issues: To whom does the disputed house belong and on whose land does it stand? Was there any litigation between the parties concerning this house? On those issues he found in favour of the plaintiff and gave him a decree. The following portion of his judgment is material for the disposal of this appeal. It is proved that the plaintiff had purchased the site and house as Tahalgir's house. The judgment between the ancestors of the parties, dated the 29th June, 1872 shows that the possession of the plaintiff's ancestors was right up to the house of Rama Singh and the temple of Hanumanji to the north. I, therefore, hold that the disputed house stands on the land purchased by the plaintiff as Bachcha Singh's house at an auction sale. The judgment dated 29th June 1872 shows that in th...
Pandit Sadanand Pande Vs. Syed Ali Jan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.288
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff asks for a declaration that he was entitled to realize the income and profits of a certain fair jointly with the defendants in proportion to his share in the village. He further claims to recover the sum of Rs. 2,415-9-9, the amount which the defendants had wrongfully realized and converted to their own use. The facts found by the Court below are shortly as follows: The fair was established some years ago jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants. It was held on land which belonged to them jointly in certain proportions. So far as the findings of fact are concerned, we are in entire accord with the Court below; in fact the evidence as to these facts has been practically admitted by the respondent's counsel. The learned Judge, however, notwithstanding the finding of facts in favour of the plaintiff held that inasmuch as there had been no sanction by Government to the levying of tolls and market dues, their exaction was illega...
Rameshar Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.697
1. The essential facts of this case are as follows: On the 12tli of September, 1908, Mahadeo Prasad and Sita Ram executed a sale-deed conveying certain property to Rameshar Das, the applicant in revision now before this Court. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 20,000 of which only Rs. 1,000 was paid down in cash, the covenant for the remainder being that Rameshar Das should keep the sum of Rs. 19,000 in deposit to the credit of the vendors, the latter to draw upon it at their convenience on tendering receipts. Before anything more was paid the parties repented of their bargain. Rameshar Das re-conveyed the same property to Mahadeo Prasad and Sita Ram, the sale-deed purporting to be simply for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 paid down in cash. The Courts below have held that Rameshar Das thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 64(a) of the Indian Stamp Act (Act No. II of 1899) in that he executed an instrument, in which all the facts and circumstances required by Section...
Goswami Krishna Chandra Deo Vs. Durga Panda Bhattacharji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.211
Karmat Husain, J.1. The learned Vakil for the applicant argues that in the circumstances of the case the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of the defendant inasmuch as his claim was not a set-off. A set-off, according to the argument of the learned Vakil, arises in those cases only in which a sum of money is found due to the plaintiff. If no sum is found to be due to the plaintiff, no question of set-off can arise be cause for the existence of a set-off, under the provisions of Sections 111, and 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882, the existence of a sum of money in favour of the plaintiff is necessary. He relies on Misri Lal v. Banarsi Das A.W.N. (1906), P. 111 : 3 A.L.J. 233. I am unable to accede to this contention. A plea of set off is undoubtedly available 'where the claims on both sides are in respect of liquidated debts or money demands which can be readily and without difficulty ascertained' Stooke v. Taylor (1879-80) 5 Q.B.D. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›