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.
Lakhan Singh and anr. Vs. Bishan Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.49
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a right of preemption in respect to a share in patti Munna Lal, Mouzah Pingri Pingra, situated in Shahjahanpur district. The vendor and pre-emptor were both co-sharers in the same patti. The vendee is a co-sharer in another patti, Bahadar Singh of the same Mahal. The sole question before us is whether on a true construction of the Wazib-ul-arz, the plaintiff-respondent has or has not a preferential right over the defendant-appellant. The Court of first instance held that as the vendor and the pre-emptor were co-sharers in the same patti, the plaintiff had a right preferential to that of the defendant to purchase this property. On behalf of the vendee, it was contended that the co-sharers in the village were divided into two classes, namely, those who were blood relations of the vendor, and those who were not. The Court of first instance, however, held that the words apna shaft which occur in the Wajib-ul-arz were equivalent to hiss...
Ram Sahai Vs. Musammat Ahmadi Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.53
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from an order of remand made by a learned Judge of this Court. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the judgment of our learned colleague. It is contended that the dismissal of the suit brought by the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs in 1881 is a bar to the present suit, which is one for the redemption of a mortgage of 1858. The former suit was brought for the redemption of an oral mortgage alleged to have been made at some time between 1859 and 1860. It was found in that suit that no such mortgage existed and the claim was accordingly dismissed. It was further found that the property in question was held by the defendant under a mortgage of 1858. It is this mortgage of 1858 which the plaintiffs now seek to redeem. We agree with our learned colleague that the second suit is not barred by the provisions of Sections 13 and 43 of Act XIV of 1882 or of Section 11 and Order II, Rule 2 of the present Code. The learned Counsel for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›