Allahabad Court March 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.
Hub Lal Tewari Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.151
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Hub Lal, appellant before us, for pre-emption of certain property which has been transferred to Ganga Sahai and others, defendants first-party, on the basis of a custom recorded in wajib-ul-arz. The Court of first instance held that the custom was proved by the record contained in the wajib-ul-arzes of 1833 and 1860. No rebutting evidence was given to that Court. The lower appellate Court held that the custom of pre-emption was not proved from the wajib-ul-arz of 1860. The reasons given by it for holding this view are as follows:2. Firstly.--That the preamble to the wajib-ul-arz of 1860 contains words to this effect 'accordingly we willingly and with full understanding subscribe to what follows and will remain bound accordingly'. Secondly: That the case before it was on all fours with two unreported rulings of this Court, namely Babu Dharam Rai v. Tahal Rai, L.P. No. 64 of 1905, decided, on the 27th of April 1906 and Phalloo Ram v. ...
Kubra Vs. Ajodhia Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.689
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for recovery of the amounts alleged to be duo on foot of three mortgages by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgages are dated respectively the 22nd and 28th of March, 1905, and the 29th of June of the same year. The first mentioned mortgage was executed by Musammat Kubra, the defendant-appellant, and one Diwan Shah. The other two mortgages were executed by Diwan Shah purporting to act on his own behalf and under a power-of-attorney from Musammat Kubra. Musammat Kubra is the wife of one Hamid Husain. She became infatuated with the defendant Diwan Shah, a Persian adventurer, who made his appearance in Saharanpur. She left her husband's protection and went and lived with Diwan Shah. The husband took proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree on the 19th of December, 1904, and on the 27th of March, 1905, Musammat Kubra was arrested and imprisoned for disobedience of the order of the Court to return to her husband. ...
Sita Ram Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.75
1. In the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, the plaintiffs-respondents prayed for a declaration of their right to a 3 biswa share in the village called Abhaipur and for a declaration that the defendant had no right whatever to the sir land appertaining thereto; that the right to sir land acquired by defendant appertained only to 2 biswa, 2 biswansis share of the village in question. The property originally belonged to Ghaus Mohammad Khan who executed a mortgage of 3 biswa of his share in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs, and subsequently mortgaged in favour of the defendant Sita Ram his entire 4 biswa, 2 biswansis share together with 129 bighas of sir. The plaintiffs instituted a suit on foot of the earlier mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property, and in execution of the decree obtained by them 3 biswa of the property was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs. Sita Ram then sued on loot of his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale of 1 biswa, 2 biswansis t...
Musammat Pancho Vs. Deo Karan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.165
1. This was a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The defence was that the sum of Rs. 400 was due upon a subsequent bond, dated 5th October 187o, and should be paid off by the mortgagee along with the mortgage money. The Court of first instance held that the document, which evidenced the loan of Rs. 400, was not a mortgage, nor did it create any charge on the property and decreed the suit. That decree was upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court. The defendant comes here in second appeal and his contention is, that on a proper construction of the document dated 5th October 1876, it creates a further charge upon the mortgaged property and that, therefore, the defendant, in accordance with the terms of the hold, is entitled to recover the amount of the deed along with the mortgage money.2. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the document does not in express terms create a mortgage or a charge. We have, however, to see what is the intention of the parties as ...
Musammat Akasi and anr. Vs. Jutagir Alias Parsramgir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.166
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration of their right to certain property and a further declaration that a sale-deed executed by Madhogir, defendant, in favour of Dhunni defendant, is ineffectual and void as against the plaintiffs. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that #he property belonged to one Sheo Shunkar. The first plaintiff Musammat Akashi is his mother and the second plaintiff Ramphalgir is his brother. Sheo Shunkar died on the 6th of May 1906, and the sale in question was executed on the 19bh of May of the same year. The plaintiffs allege that upon the death of Sheo Shunkar they inherited the property, and that Madhogir had no right to sell it. It is admitted that the property was mortgaged to one Ram Ghulam under a mortgage deed executed by Musammat Akashi as the mother and guardian of Sheo Shunkar and that Ram Ghulam is in possession by virtue of that mortgage. The defendants denied that the property be...
Hulasi and ors. Vs. Kalka Prashad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.150
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a mortgage. The facts are as follows: On the 17th of July 1879, a mortgage was executed by one Shanker Lal, who is now represented by the defendants Nos. 1-4, in favour of one Shib Dayal, who is represented by the plaintiffs. This mortgage comprised zamindaris, first, in the village Sarai Sadhu and, secondly, in the village Chamarpura Kalan. On the 26th of August 1881, the same mortgagor made a second mortgage in favour of one Badri Prasad. This mortgage was a mortgage of Chamarpura Kalan only. A third mortgage was made on the 28th of April 1892 in favour of the appellants. This mortgage also affected Chamarpura Kalan only and the mortgage of the 26th August 1881 was satisfied by this mortgage. On the 23rd of July 1895, a fourth mortgage was made in favour of the plaintiffs, which included both the villages. On the 19th of February 1896, the appellants purchased the equity of redemption in one village, namely, Chamarpura, the consi...
Mahadeya Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.586
George Knox, J.1. Musammat Mahadeya has been convicted of an offence under Section 4, Act III of 1867. In addition to the sentence of fine passed upon her and others who have been tried with her, the Magistrate ordered that the instruments of gaming found in the house at the time, and moneys found on the floor and moneys found on the persons of the gamblers be also confiscated. Upon the person of Musammat Mahadeya, a watch and chain and ornaments were found and also Rs. 8 in cash. The applicant being under a misapprehension that an order had been made for the confiscation of her jewellery as well as of her cash, applied to the Court of Session at Mirzapur for revision of the Magistrate's order. From the explanation furnished by the learned Magistrate it appears that no order; was made or was intended to be made for the confiscation of the jewellery; and that the order that was made was intended to be made as regards the money found on the person of the accused, as the Magistrate was of...
Sri Bhagwat Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Jatan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.587
1. This appeal arises out; of a suit for pre-emption and the question to be determined is whether the entry in the wajib-ul-arzes of 1833 and 1860, relied upon by the plaintiff is the record of a custom or of a contract. We have considered the terms of both the wajib-ul-arzes and are of opinion that they record a contract entered into by the co-sharers. In the year 1833 only two persons owned the village in question and they executed a wajib-ul-arz in which they stated that they agreed to abide by the terms contained in it, after fully understanding them, One of the clauses contained in the document relates to pre-emption and that clause is to the effect that if any one amongst the co-sharers wished to transfer his share in whole or in part by sale or mortgage, it would be necessary for him first to inform his co-sharers in the village and to sell to them at the price fixed or mortgage at the amount agreed upon. If the transfer was made to a stranger without informing the co-sharers it...
Kunji Lal Vs. Durga Prashad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.127
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought to enforce an award. The defence was that there had been an application under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act XIV of 1882, to file the award, that the filing of the award was resisted on the ground of misconduct of the arbitrators, that the Court refused to file it on that ground and that, therefore, the present suit was barred by the provisions of Section 13 of Act XIV of 1882. The Court below decided in favour of this contention and hence the present appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant, that the refusal to file the award cannot possibly operate as res judicata because the order of the Court refusing to file the award on the ground of the misconduct of the arbitrators was not a decision made in a suit and that the only matter before the Court on that application was the question whether or not the award should be filed. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the refusal to file the award o...
Baladeen Kalwar and ors. Vs. Raghunath Kalwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.98
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued for a declaratory decree to the effect that they were jointly entitled to possession as co-sharers in certain cultivatory holdings together with an-injunction to restrain certain defendants from interfering with their joint cultivation. In the alternative, a decree for joint possession was asked. The question in dispute on second appeal has narrowed itself down and now relates only to certain particular plots which the Courts below describe as those shown in list (B). In respect to these plots, the case for the defendants is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. It has been shown that as recently as June the 21st, 1906, the defendant Baladin obtained as against the present plaintiffs a decree for exclusive possession of these particular plots together with mesne profits. The present suit is clearly intended to annul the effect of that decree so far as these particular plots are concerned. In reply to the ple...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »