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.
Sri Nath Das Vs. Angud Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.126
1. This appears to us a clear case. The plaintiff Sri Nath Das sues to recover two sums of money which are alleged to have been borrowed by the defendants in the year 1906. On the occasion of the first loan of Rs. 300, the defendant Bijai Bahadur Singh, who is the son of the other defendant, executed a promissory-note, and on the occasion of the second loan of Rs. 200 on the 1st of Jane, 190G, he also executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory-note Bijai Bahadur Singh was at the date of the note a minor. Therefore, no claim, against him upon the notes can succeed. The plaintiff, however, did not sue Bijai Bahadur Singh upon the promissory-notes but he brought his suit against both the father and the son for money lent, stating in the plaint that both the father and the, son borrowed the two sums of Rs. 300' and Rs. 200 from him. in the. plaint he states that two notes were executed by the son in his favour.2. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim and upon appe...
Rai Bahadur Sabu Lata Pershad and anr. Vs. Sheikh Zahur-ud-dIn and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.113
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeals Nos. 113 and 114 of 1909. The question involved in them is one of contribution and the claim arises under the following circumstances. One Ram Mohan Lal owned shares in five villages. He was indebted to one Nand Kishore who brought a suit to realise the amount of the debt. On the 8th of May 1889, Nand Kishore obtained an order for attachment of the property of Ram Mohan Lal before judgment. On the 28th of May 1889, he obtained a decree. This was a simple money decree. On the 25th of August 1905, the interest of Ram Mohan Lal in the five villages was advertised for sale. Prior to this, namely, on the 9th of October 1898, the plaintiffs-appellants purchased the interest of Ram Mohan Lal in one of the villages and to save that property from sale under the attachment, they on the 21st of August 1905, paid the amount of Nand Kishore's decree. They then instituted the suit out of which the appeals have arisen to obtain contribution from transfer...
Mahesh Dat Pande Vs. Gokul Naik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.115
1. This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. The plaintiff-appellant seeks to pre-empt a sale of a share in a village on the allegation that according to the custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village and recorded in the wajib-ul-arg of the years 1885-86, he has a preferential right to pre-empt. The custom as to the right of pre-emption contained in the wajib-ul-arz is to the effect that when a hissadar sells his share, he shall sell first to a sharik, who is a near relative (aziz karibi) and afterwards to a sharik who is aziz baid or distant relative, and then to hissadaran deh. After the date of wajib-ul-arz, the village was divided by perfect partition into three mahals. The property which is the subject of the sale is in mahal No. 1, The plaintiff is not a sharer in thai mahal. He is a sharer, however, in mahal No. 3, and the contention advanced by his learned Advocate is that he is a sharik of the village, that is, a partner in the village area as it originally stood, and...
Badal Khan Vs. Murtaza and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.977
Richards, J.1. One point only has been argued in this appeal. It appears that two ladies, namely, Musammat Muniran and Mussammat Najjan sued for a declaration that certain property against which the defendant held mortgage-decrees for sale was not saleable to the extent of their shares. Daring the progress of the suit one of the ladies, Musammat Muniran, died and the plaint was duly amended. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The surviving plaintiff appealed. While the appeal was pending she also died. A vakalatnama was filed on behalf of persons claiming to be the heirs of the surviving plaintiff, Musammat Najjan. However, no application was made to the Court to have the legal representatives of Musammat Najjan made parties and the decree which reversed that of the Court of first instance was made in favour of Musammat Najjan who was, as already stated, dead at the time. Order XXII, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for the Court making the legal repres...
Nasir-ud-dIn Khan Vs. Hikmatullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.117
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house which formerly belonged to one Musammat Najm-un-nissa. Musammat Najm-un-nissa executed what purports to be a deed of sale of the house in favour of the defendant respondent, Hikmat Ullah Khan, her sister's son, on the 2nd of January 1902. She died on the 7th of April 1904, and the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiff, who is the brother and heir of Musammat Najm-un-nissa, to recover possession of the house.2. Both Courts have dismissed the claim and this appeal has been preferred.3. The learned Vakil for the appellant contends that no consideration for the sale of the property passed and that consequently the alleged deed of conveyance must be deemed to be absolutely void, and that he is entitled, therefore, to recover possession, despite the execution of this document. The learned District Judge finds that the document in question was a bona fide document but, he says, except possibly Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›