Allahabad Court April 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.
Sahdeo Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Sewak Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.331
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale brought on the basis of a mortgage, dated the 13th April 1891, which was executed by one Isri Rai for a sum of Rs. 499. The plaintiffs-respondents made parties to this suit the present appellants, sons and grandsons of Tsri Rai and Radha Kishen &c;, the third set of defendants, persons who-had a prior mortgage over a portion of the property now in suit. The other defendants are Ishri Rai and certain subsequent mortgagees. It appears that the prior mortgage of Badha Kissen was dated the 4th of; January 1890. A suit was brought on that bond and a decree for sale obtained in 1897 by the prior mortgagees. To that suit, the subsequent mortgagees, the plaintiffs-respondents, were made partes. They failed to redeem. The property was sold and purchased by the prior mortgagees. Subsequently to that the auction-purchasers re-sold the property to the present defendants-appellants, the sons and grandsons of Isri Rai. The Plaintiffs-respondents sought to...
Kunwar Gobind Krishn NaraIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Sirjunnissa Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.226
1. The Court below dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred by Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 and hence this appeal.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession Mouza Kutabpur in, the district of Bareilly and also for mesne profits. According to the plaintiff's case. Rai Balak Ram, Raja Ratan Singh and Kunwar Daulat Singh were members of a joint Hindu family subject to the Mitakshara Law and owned ancestral properties including the property in dispute. Rai Balak Ram died in 1843 and Raja Ratan Singh became a convert to Muhammadanism in 1845 and from that time ceased to have any right to or interest in the joint family property. His son Daulat Singh thereupon became absolute owner of all that property. Daulat Singh died on the 8th of January 1851 leaving his widow Rani Sen Kunwar and his daughters Rani Chhatar Kunwar, and Rani Mewa Kunwar as his heirs. Rani Raj Kunwar, the wife of Raja Ratan Singh and Khairati Lal, son of Raja Ratan Singh's daught...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.398
John Stanley, C.J.1. In view of the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court, I am of opinion that the learned Judge of this Court ought not to have interfered with its decree. For similar reasons Appeal No. 24 of 1907, under the Letters Patent, was decided by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member. In that case I and my Brother Burkitt held, in a somewhat similar case, that in view of the findings of both the lower Courts, the learned Judge of this Court, from whom the appeal in that case was preferred, should not have disturbed the decisions of the Courts below. I would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decree f of the learned Judge of this Court in regard to the windows complained of and restore the decree of the lower appellate Court with costs.Banerji, J.2. I am of the same opinion. It was pointed out, in the case of Gokul Prasad v. Radha 10 A. 358, that every case must depend on its own facts. In every case the principal question is whether the right ' of p...
Ram Das Vs. Mirza JamaluddIn Ahmad Khan Sahib and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.399
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiffs . in this; suit are ground landlords in a Mohalla of Benares. The defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are occupiers of a house for tbe site of which they pay a ground rent to the plaintiffs. Those defendants have sold the house to defendant No. 6, wh6 is the appellant in this Court, for a sum of Rs. 300. The plaintiffs filed this suit claiming Rs. 47-5 10 as their share out of Rs. 75 haq-i-chdharum, i.e., landlord's rights to a fth of purchase-money. Several pleas were taken in defence but in the present appeal the only questions with which we are concerned are whether on a true-interpretation of the qabuliat, under which the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 held, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover 1/4th of the entire purchase-money or 1/4th merely of the price of the materials of the house. The defendants, no doubt, with the object of making payment of this haq-i-chaharum as little as possible have purported to sell their rights in their house as follows: the house itself fo...
ishar Dat Tiwari Vs. Ram Harak Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.872
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of portion of a grove which they alleged had been improperly sold by the tenants to the defendant-appellant, Ishar Dat. One of the tenants of the portion of the village in question, Dullam Bahelia, on the 4th of October, 1907, sold a portion of a grove, in which he and the other co-tenants had planted. The zamindars claimed to have this deed of sale set aside and also for possession of the portion of the grove which was sold. The defendant relies upon the wajib-ul-arz of the village prepared in the year 1862, as establishing the right of Dullam Bahelia, to sell his share of the grove in question, it having been planted by him and the co-tenants.2. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim to the extent of the plaintiffs' share in the village. On appeal the lower appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. A second appeal was preferred to this Court an...
Musammat Jey Devi and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Prashad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.373
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage, dated the 14th of March 1901, executed in favour of one Brij Lal. The plaintiff is the Assignee of the mortgage from Brij Lal. The Court of first instance made a simple money decree against all the defendants and dismissed the claim for foreclosure. An appeal was preferred to the lower appellate Court by some of the defendants, and objections were taken under Section 561 of Act XIV of 1882 by the plaintiff. The objection of the plaintiff prevailed in the appellate Court and the case was remanded to the Court of first instance in order that a proper decree might be made against all the defendants including such defendants as were not parties to the appeal to the lower appellate Court. Among the defendants, who were not parties to the appeal, were Lachhmi Narain appellant, and Sheo Darshan Lal, whose .widow is the appellant Jai Devi. After remand the case was re-tried in the absence of Lachm iNarain and Sheo Darshau and a...
Raja Dirgbijai Singh Vs. Ram AdhIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.70
Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption in. respect of a sale of zamindari shares in Mauza Gobri in the Allahabad district. The plaintiff is a cosharer in the patti in which the property sold is situate. The defendant vendee, the appellant in this Court, is in receipt of a malikana allowance of 10 per cent. of the annual Revenue of the village. In his written statement he states himself as superior proprietor. His exact status has not been made the subject of enquiry. In the judgment of the Court below he is referred to as superior proprietor. This suit was brought upon the provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz under which first co-sharers ekjaddi and next co-sharers in the patti and mahal have been given a right of pre-emption in case of a sale to a stranger.2. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption and the defendant vendee must be considered a stranger. In second appeal to this Court it is contended that the vendee is not a stran...
Ali Bakhsh and anr. Vs. Alah Dad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.376
Tudball, J.1. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether the heirs of a Muhammadan widow, who has lawfully obtained possession of her husband's estate in lieu of her dower, are entitled to continue holding that estate after her death, until the dower debt has been discharged.2. The present plaintiffs-appellants are the heirs of one Musammat Zahuran. This lady and Musammat Saliman were the wives of one Izzat Khan or Izzat IJllah, who died on 29th August 1905, leaving as his heirs the two widows (who as heirs were entitled to a 1/8th share each) and one Alladad Khan (who was entitled to 6/'8ths). On his death the widows each took possession of a half share. Musammat Zahuran died in December 1906 and the present plaintiffs as her heirs applied for mutation of names. They were opposed by Alladad Khan but defeated him in the Revenue Court. He then transferred his rights as heir to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and so the plaintiffs have now sued for a declaration of their right to re...
Gurdial Vs. Mathura Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.920
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The Wajib-ul-arz translate at page 11 of the paper book is as follows:If any co-sharar should wish to sell or mortgage his property, then first he shall transfer it to a co-sharer in the patti and after that to other pattidars of the mahal and after that to the owners of the other mahals and in case of their refusal, he is at liberty to transfer it to an outsider at the same price as a stranger would be willing to give.2. The only exception taken on this translation is by the respondents who say the proper translation of the concluding word3 is 'the same price as a stranger gives'. Perhaps the most literal translation would be the same price which a stranger may give. The respondents rely of the case of Khatun Bibi v. Sayida Bibi 27 A. 457 : A.W.N. (1905) 45 : 2 A.L.J. 689 and also on the case of Narain Saran Singh v. Sidh Narain Singh 5 A.L.J. 655 : A.W.N. (1908) 251. In both cases it was decided that the right of pre-emption only a...
Paras Ram and ors. Vs. Lalman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.570
Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage executed in the year 1848 by two persons named Rati and Lila in favour of one Madho Ram. The mortgage was one with possession. In the year 1884 Madho Ram, it is said, executed a simple mortgage of the property treating it as his own property in favour of one Kashi Ram whose rights subsequently devolved upon one Basant Lal by assignment. In the year 1900 Basant Lal sued upon the mortgage of 1884 and brought the property to sale as that of Madho Ram. The property was purchased at the auction sale by Ram Prasad and others defendants-appellants in this Court. Basant Lal also acquired certain shares from the representatives of the original mortgagors of 1848, and those shares he transferred to the present plaintiff, who has also himself acquired certain other shares from other representatives of the original mortgagors. The main defence to the suit was that the plaintiff is now estopped from treating the property as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »