Allahabad Court November 1910 Judgments
Chiphur and ors. Vs. Abdul Hakim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.23
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption of a share in the village of Mendhapati in the district of Fatehpur. The vendee is a stranger to the village; while the pre-emptor is a share-holder in a Mahal of the village, but not in the Mahal in which the property which has been sold is situate. A partition of the village was effected in the year 1888, but prior to that partition the Wajib-ul-arz of the village had a provision in regard to pre-emption. The Chapter in it dealing with pre-emption is headed 'Rights of co-sharers as among themselves on the basis of custom or of agreement' and the custom is set forth as follows: 'The custom of pre-emption obtains. In case of sale of property by a co-sharer, another co-sharer in the Mama can bring a suit for pre-emption. If he offers a low price, then the vendor can sell the property to a stranger'. Upon partition of the village, three Mahals were formed and in one of these Mahals the plaintiff is a co-sharer. This Mahal, however, is n...
Tag this Judgment!Umda Begam Vs. Muhammadi Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.200
1. This appeal arises in a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a portion of her dower, She is the widow of Muhammad Ali Bahadur Khan, and it is admitted that the amount of her dower was Rs. 1,25,000. During the life-time of her husband she brought a suit in 1886 to recover Rs. 25,000 out of her dower, which she said was payable to her ass it had not been settled at the time of her marriage whether her dower was to be prompt or deferred. In answer to her claim her husband alleged that according to the contract entered into by the parties at the time of the marriage the whole amount of the dower was deferred. The Court overruled this contention and made a decree in the plaintiff's favour on the 26th of June, 1886, holding that the amount claimed was recoverable under the rules of Muhammadan Law governing the parties. Muhammad Ali Bahadur Khan having since died, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover Rs. 30,000 out of the balance of her dower...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ishaq Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.198
1. After hearing the parties in this appeal we have come to the conclusion that the appeal ought not to be decided without determination of some further matters by the learned District Judge. Notwithstanding that the defendants claimed actual title to the land in dispute, the case was fought out upon the issue whether or not the defendants had a right to soak their cloth and dry it on the property in dispute which has now been found to be the property of the plaintiffs. It seems to us that the learned District Judge was of opinion that no Court under any circumstances could find that a customary right existed where the evidence in support of the custom consisted of user. In this we think the learned Judge was wrong. In our opinion, it is open to the Court to infer from long enjoyment not exercised by permission, stealth, or force, the existence of a custom. Of course, if the Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the alleged custom was unreasonable or that the...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Vs. Gayan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.199
1. The plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of one Nohar Singh. They instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for a declaration of their title and for possession of the property of Nohar Singh. Nohar Singh-left a widow, Musammat Mendo, who executed three hypothecation bonds in favour of Zalim Singh and Chandan Singh, both now deceased. Suits were brought upon these bonds and the property now in question was sold in execution of decrees obtained in these suits and portion of the property was purchased by the mortgagees. The suit of the plaintiffs in the present case was resisted on the ground that the mortgages in question were executed by Musammat Mendo to raise money for legal necessity. The Court below held that there was legal necessity for portion only of the loan taken by her and gave a decree accordingly to the plaintiffs for possession and for mesne profits. The learned Subordinate Judge deducted, however, from the mesne profits, the sums representing the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Pershad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1910
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.102
Tudball, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate of Meerut whereby he dismissed the applicant's appeal from the order of a first class Magistrate binding him over to be of good behaviour in his own bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties for Rs. 2,000 each for a period of one year. As remarked by Alston, J., in the case of Sham Lal v. Emperor 6 A.L.J. 487 : 2 Ind. Cas. 225 : 9 Cr. L.J. 628 the High Court will not ordinarily interfere on the merits with proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the Court hearing the appeal under Section 406, shows in its judgment that it has really and not merely nominally considered the evidence on the record. In the present case some fifty three witnesses for the prosecution were examined by the Court of first instance. The case was keenly contested by the applicant, who called about one hundred and twenty witnesses to establish his good character. The Magistrate who heard the c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›