Allahabad Court February 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.
Babu Sheo Pargas Singh and ors. Vs. Nawab Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.496
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for the redemption of certain property mortgaged on the 2nd of June. 1856. Pour persons mortgaged their property under this document. The property now in dispute is the one-sixth share which belonged to Bachu Lal Singh. The four mortgagors were Raghunandan, Jhumak Singh, Bachu Lal Singh and Padam Nath Saran Singh. The mortgagees were Jeo Lal Singh and Subh Dayal Singh. The mortgagees transferred their rights to Jhumak Singh and Padam Nath Saran Singh on the 15th December 1869. After that Ambica, son of Jhumak Singh, and Pad am Nath. Saran Singh mortgaged certain property to the defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in this suit including among the mortgaged property their mortgagee rights in the share of Bachu Lal Singh. The defendants Nos. 1 to 11 brought two suits for sale on the basis of their mortgages in the year 1897. At that time, Bachu Lal Singh was dead and his widow Lakhraji Kanwar, was made a party to the suits as having an interest in the mortg...
Kesho Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Ram Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.590
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Musammat Ram Kuar, widow of one Ram Bharosa Singh. It appears that at the time of his death, Ram Bharosa Singh had a sum of money in fixed deposit in the Allahabad Bank. After his death, his widow applied for a succession certificate enabling her to receive this sum of money. Notice was sent to the present defendants, who admittedly are the next reversioners to Ram Bharosa Singh. They, while not disputing the right of the lady, asked for an order protecting their reversionary interests. The District Judge at first asked Musammat Ram Kuar to give security, and upon her saying that she was unable to do so, he granted her a certificate under Section 8 of the Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889) enabling her only to receive interest on the deposit. Musammat Ram Kuar then brought the present suit, asking that her title to this sum in deposit might be declared, that she might be granted a decree entitling her to withdraw this money, a...
Ajudhia Prashad and anr. Vs. Jodha Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.659
Karmat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for preemption on the basis of two wajib-ul-arzes one of 1864 and the other of 1884-5. The Court of first instance decreed the claim on the ground that the wajib-ul-arz recorded the custom of pre-emption. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the first Court coming to the conclusion that the wajib-ul-arz was the record of a contract of pre-emption. The reasoning which has led the lower appellate Court to this conclusion is that in the earlier wajib-ul-arz there are only two classes of pre-emptors: Karibi rishtadar and 2 hisadaran digar potti while in the latter there are four classes: (1) hisadaran karibi ekjaddi (2), nazdiki khandan (3), hissadar thok and (4) hisadar deh. That Court, on the authority of Gobind Ram v. Masihullah Khan 29 A. 295 : 4 A.L.J. 137 : A.W.N (1909) 39, has held that the alteration shows that the custom of 1864 has not continued in force but has been abrogated by a contract.2. The plaintiffs prefer a second appeal t...
imam-ud-dIn and anr. Vs. Sadarat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1910
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.897
Richards, J.1. This application for review and the connected second appeal arise out of a suit for pre-emption. The second appeal, in this suit came before one of us on the 15th of April, 1907, with the result that the suit was decreed subject to the payment of the purchase-money. It now transpires that at the date this judgment was given one of the respondents was dead. The judgment, of course, was passed in ignorance of his death. It is admitted that the suit was one in which the cause of action did not continue against the surviving defendants. It was necessary to bring on the record the representatives of the deceased respondent. The respondent died on the 28th of October, 1906. An application for execution of the decree was made on the 24th of August, 1907. Possession was obtained on the 3rd of September, 1907. Imam-ud-din and Karim-ud-din applied to the execution Court to set aside the execution on the ground that the decree having been passed after the death of Nanhoo was void a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›