Allahabad Court December 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.
Zia-ud-dIn and ors. Vs. Muhammad Umar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.275
1. This appeal arises out' of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of arrears of rent against the first defendant who is the tenant of a house and shop belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendant Wajih-ud-din. Wajih-ud-din owns a small share in the shop, but it is alleged that he used to collect the rent. On the 3rd of April, 1905, the plaintiffs served the first defendant, Muhammad Umar, with a notice stating that they suspected the good faith of Wajih-ud-din and directing him not to pay the plaintiffs share of the rent to Wajih-ud-din. Shortly after this notice, on the 24th of April, 1905; the plaintiffs brought a suit against Wajih-ud-din for partition and obtained a preliminary decree on the 29th of July 1905. The final decree in the partition suit was made by the Court of first instance on the 20th of September, 1906. There was an appeal to this Court and the case was remanded for a fresh partition. This partition took place on the 9th of March, 1908. Under i...
Muhammad Usman and ors. Vs. Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.314
1. The Question in this appeal is whether or not a custom said to prevail in the village of Walidpur in the district of Azamgarh has been proved whereby a tenant occupying a house in the abadi of the village is empowered to dispose of it to a stranger, without the consent of the landlord, not merely the material of the house but also the right to reside in it so long as the house is standing.2. The plaintiffs, who are the zamindars, upon the sale by their tenant of the house in question instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of the site of the house and also for one-fourth of the materials of the house, or the value of one-fourth of such materials. They claimed to be entitled of the materials under a provision in the wajib-ul-urz of the village which runs as follows: 'A ryot who sells a house pays one-fourth of the sale consideration to the zamindar, and the latter, if he desires to do so, takes' one-fourth of the materials of the house.' The defendant in ...
Chandan and anr. Vs. Kallu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.274
Griffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, directing further enquiry into the case of Chandan who was discharged by an order of the Magistrate, dated the 23rd June 1910. Chandan brought a suit on a bond against Kallu, the complainant in this case. The suit was decreed by the Munsif. On appeal the District-Judge reversed the Munsif's decision and dismissed the suit. Meanwhile Kallu had filed a complaint against Chandan, charging him under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, with having dishonestly induced him to affix his thumb mark to a paper which he was told was a notice in connection with a mutation case but which proved to be the bond on which Chandan sued. That complaint was dismissed tinder Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate of the first class. Kallu applied to the Additional Sessions Judge in revision who, under the provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed ...
Lalla Juggilal Vs. Hukum Chand Agarwal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.25
Griffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore dismissing the plaintiff's suit under the following circumstances. The plaintiff at an auction sale bought a house the rent of which is a matter now in dispute. The date of the auction sale is the 29th Jane 1907. The sale was not confirmed until the 22nd August 1908. The suit relates to the rent which accrued due between these two dates. The Court below dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the rent accruing due before the 22nd August 1908, the date of the confirmation of the sale. On behalf of the applicant, I have been referred to the case of Adhur Chander Banerjee v. Aghore Nath Aroo 2 C.W.N. 589. There are several authorities of this Court against the plea urged on behalf of applicant. I need only refer to the case of Amir Kazim v. Darhari Mal 24 A. 475 : A.W.N. (1902) 145. In a later case decided by a Bench of this Court [Shiam Lal...
Musammat Dallo Vs. Musammat Sibta Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.31
1. In a case in which Musammat Dallo the applicant was the defendant; a decree ex parts was passed against her on the 14th of May 1909. On the 19th of December 1909, Musammat Dallo applied to the Court which passed that decree to set it aside. Upon this application notice was sent to the opposite side. This was the first error committed by that Court. The Court should not have served notice upon the opposite side until it had itself been satisfied that the summons was not duly served or sufficient cause shown for the appearance not having been made. On the 12th of February, 1910, the opposite party appeared in Court and it would appear from the record that the applicant was so far present that her pleader was in Court and prepared to go on with the case. The Court passed an order that no further action could be taken until the applicant had filed a copy of the ex parte decree. It was represented to the Court by the pleader for Musammat Dallo that he had no copy of the decree and needed...
Mathura Prashad and anr. Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.33
Griffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh, dismissing the petitioners appeal under the following circumstances. The sale of the judgment-debtors' property took place on the 8th of April 1910. On the 21st April, the judgment-debtors deposited the amount required under Order XXI, Rule 89, but did not make the application to have the sale set aside until the 12th of May. It was contended before the Court below and is again contended here that the application to deposit the money was a sufficient application and that no further application was necessary. The learned District Judge observes: 'In the application to deposit the money there is no prayer to have the sale set aside. No application to have the sale set aside was made until the 12th of May and that application is clearly barred by time.' It is urged on behalf of the applicant that as the deposit was made within thirty days as required by Rule 92, the applicant had done ...
Ram Kishen Vs. Pandit Baij Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.25a
Griffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Allahabad, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 87-8-0. The plaintiff alleged that he and some two hundred others combined together and contributed money in shares of Rs. 20 each for the purchase and sale of Railway sleepers and wire, the agreement being that the share-holders were to share in the profits or loss of the business. The management of the business was in the hands of the defendants. They announced to the share-holders that the business had resulted in a loss. They paid off certain share-holders the sum of Rs. 13-12-0 per share deducting Rs. 6-4-0 per share for loss. The plaintiff, however, was not paid anything and he sued to recover the sum of Rs. 87-8-0 which includes the sum of Rs. 5 as interests The lower Court has held that the association of which the plaintiff was a member was one the registration of which was obligatory under...
Niadar and anr. Vs. Tika and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.45
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit by certain dhobis for a declaration that they and other Muhammadans of the village have a right to say their prayers on Id days on the land in dispute. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim and the decree of that Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. That Court towards the end of its judgment remarks: No custom has been proved and there is no sufficient evidence on (the) record to prove that the plaintiffs have been reading their namaz on the land.' The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court. The memorandum of appeal contains three pleas. The first is that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the plaintiffs acquired by custom the right to say Id and Bakrid prayers on the land in question. The second is that the existence of shade trees over the land in question is a piece of evidence in favour of the appellants. The third is that there is no evidence to support the finding of the lower appellate Court th...
Bishambar Nath Vs. Gaddar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.317
1. We are of opinion that, the view taken by our learned colleague is correct. It is based on the ruling in Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokal Das Khimji 3 B. 74 with which ruling we agree. The cases which have been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant appear to us to be distinguishable. The correctness of the decision in the case of Goma Mahad Patil v. Gokal Das Khimji 3 B. 74 has never, so far as we are aware, been questioned. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Rambaran Rai Vs. Bausu Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.26
Karamat Husain, J.1. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the members of the family: __________________|___________________ | | Bhagwan Rai Ram Niranjan Rai | | Ramesar Rai= | Musammat Batasi ________________| (died issucloss). | | | _________________________|________________________________________ | | | | Rambaran Daulat | Thakur | | | | | Ram Sewak Mamgla Rai= | | Musammat Jamna Kaur | | (defendant IV) | | | | Har Prasad | | | Har Sewak | ________|_________ | | | | Santu Rai Gajadhar Rai | | _______________________________________| _____________|______________ | | Suraj Deo Rai Rajma Rai2. The facts or the case are as follows: On the death of Ramesar Rai, his widow Musammat Batasi applied for mutation of names in her favour in respect of the zamindary and sir. The application was resisted by the sons of Ram Niranjan Rai. Musammat Batasi and the sons of Ram Niranjan Rai entered into a compromise which is dated the 21st August 1876, whereby the zamindary property was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »