Allahabad Court May 1910 Judgments
Muhammad Alam and ors. Vs. Akbar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.835
1. The plaintiffs, who We seven in number and all residents of the city of Kanauj, instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to have it declared that certain land in the village of Kandrauli is the pargana of Kanauj is waqf property appertaining as such to an Idgah or mosque which was built by the Moghal Emperors. It appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the land in question was recorded as Bagh Idgdh of mauza Kandrauli No. 463 at the time of the settle-, ment made under Regulation IX of 1833 and No. 489 in the jamabandi of the Settlement of 1872. The principal, defendants are the purchasers of a part of the zemindari of the village of Kandrauli. The defendants set up a plea that neither the Idgah nor the land adjoining it was waqf property and upon this plea the main issue in the case was, framed. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiffs a declaration that the Idgah was endowed property but dismissed the suit as regards the land adjoining i...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Taki Vs. Shandar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.212
1. Having regard to the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which governs the relations of the zamindar and the tenants, we are of opinion that the view expressed by the learned Additional Judge in his judgment is correct. The wajib-ul-arz recites that the groves planted by cultivators are noted in a list of groves, and that those owners have a right to out the timber in any way they please. It is proved that the timber in question was planted by the predecessor-in-title of the defendants and the defendants entered as occupancy tenants in the column of tenants and also as owners of the trees. In view of the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which we think has been correctly interpreted by the Court below, we dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale....
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pargas Upadhya and ors. Vs. Sooba Upadhya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.837
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a sub-mortgage. One Balgobind Rai was the occupancy tenant of a holding. He, on the 20th of July 1881, mortgaged this holding to one Raj Kumar Lal and on the 23rd of November 1899, Raj Kumar Lal executed a sub-mortgage of a portion of the mortgaged property in favour of the defendants and again on the 8th of July 1904, he executed a further mortgage of the same property in favour of the defendants. Then on the 9th of July 1907, Raj Kumar transferred his mortgage security to the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the redemption of the sub-mortgages executed in favour of the defendants by Raj Kumar, his predecessor-in-title. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim but on appeal the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the Court below and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree the present appeal has been preferred and the only conte...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Nakchhed Ram Sukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.890
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 878-1-0 the balance of the price paid for a share in a village under the following circumstances. The entire village was mortgaged in the first instance to one Parsotam Das. It was subsequently mortgaged usufructuarily to three persons, named, Sheodat, Nakchhed and Balak Ram. Parsotam Das brought a suit against the mortgagor for sale, obtained a decree and when the village was put up for sale he purchased it himself. He had not made the puisne mortgagees parties to this suit. He then brought a second suit against the puisne mortgagees. That suit was compromised and it was agreed between the parties that the puisne mortgagees were to pay Rs. 2,065 in redemption of Parsotam Dass's mortgage. In pursuance of this compromise, Sheodat paid one-third of Rs. 2,065 and obtained possession of one-third of the village. Nakchhed, the defendant in this suit, paid the remaining two-thirds of Rs. 2,065 and obtained possession of two-thirds o...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Pershad and ors. Vs. Ganga Bishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.838
1. The facts of this case are these:One Achche Lal and another, the owners of property, executed a possessory mortgage of the property in favour of one Ganga Bishen on the 26th of June 1885. On the 7th of November 1900, Ganga Bishen sub-mortgaged this property to Basdeo and in that mortgage he entered into the following absolute covenant viz., that if during the period of the mortgage, the property mortgaged, in any year by any reason, should pass out of the possession of Basdeo, or the mortgage-deed for any reason should be declared to be invalid, he, the executant, would be liable to pay the loss sustained by the mortgagee. The mortgagors took advantage of the Bundilkhand Encumbered Estates Act (Act 1 of 1903). Notices to claimants were issued in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Ganga Bishen, the mortgagee of the property from the proprietors, took no steps to realize the amount due to him under his mortgage of the 26th of June 1885. Basdeo did prefer a claim, but that cla...
Tag this Judgment!Batul Kuar Vs. Munni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.289
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent for the year 1313 Fasli. The defence set up was that the suit was barred by the provisions of 43 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, a decree having been obtained against the appellant in a suit instituted on the 10th of January, 1907, in respect of the rent for the year 1314 Fasli. The former tenant of the holding was one Gokul Singh. He died leaving his mother of the name of Batul Kuer and a daughter of the same name. They continued to reside on the holding of Gokul Singh. On the 17th of July, 1907, the plaintiff sued the mother Batul Kuer, for the rent for the year 1313 Fasli, and obtained an ex parte decree on the 31st of August, 1906. The rent for the succeeding year having fallen into arrears, on the 10th of January, 1907, the plaintiff sued Batul Kuer, the daughter, for that rent. The plaintiff at this time had become aware that Batul Kuer, the daughter, was or claimed to be the tenant. This suit was also decreed ex parte. After this ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sukh Rai Vs. Mahadeo Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.290
1. Ram Sukh Rai made an application to a Magistrate of the first class, asking him to order Mahadeo Rai and nine others to furnish security to keep the peace. The Magistrate held an inquiry and being of opinion that the allegations of the applicant were untrue, ordered the discharge of Mahadeo Rai and others. He then directed Ram Sukh Rai to pay Rs. 50, as compensation to Mahadeo Rai and others. The order was apparently made under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the order be set aside as illegal. I am of opinion that the order is clearly illegal. By Section 250 an order for compensation can be made only in cases instituted by a complaint as defined in the Code or upon information given by a Police Officer to a Magistrate, where a person is accused of an offence triable by a Magistrate. A complaint according to the definition of the term means an allegation made to a Magistrate wit...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Lal Vs. Madari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.484
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal involves a short and simple point. The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of money under a mortgage of 1895, by sale of the mortgaged property. He gave credit for Rs. 245, which he declared to be the value of certain grain and cattle delivered to him by the mortgagor. The defendants alleged that the value of the grain and cattle was Rs. 350, and not Rs. 245 and they also alleged a further payment of Rs. 320. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the value of the grain and the cattle was Rs. 245 but it was also of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to compound interest. It accordingly made a decree for Rs. 316. The plaintiff appealed. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to compound interest, that he had received from the defendant a sum of Rs. 320 and that the value of the grain and the cattle delivered to him was Rs. 350, and not Rs. 245. In the result he made a decree for Rs. 741-7-10. The plaintiff has preferred...
Tag this Judgment!Salig Ram and ors. Vs. Duni Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.688
Banerji, J.1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants, for recovery of possession of a 4/5th share of 1 biswas and in the alternative for a decree declaring them to be entitled to a 4/5th share. The facts are these:One Kishen Lal had four sons. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Govind Rae and Nagar Mal, two of those sons. Duni Chand defendant is the son of Daulat Rae, another of the sons of Kishen Lal. He had a fourth son Girdhar Lal whose widow was Musammat Maharani. In 1890 the members of the family of Kishen Lal, who were then alive, referred their disputes to arbitration and an award was made under which the descendants of Daulat Rae and Govind Rae and Nagar Mal were given a 1 biswa each and Musammat Maharani was given a similar share which it was declared was to go to equal shares to the descendants of Daulat Rae, Govind Rai, and Nagar Mal upon her death. The award was made a rule of Court in 1891. Musammat Maharani died on the 1...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Parpan Ramanuj Das Vs. Bala Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.709
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property appertaining to a certain temple at Nayagaon and for a perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from interfering with plaintiff's possession of the property and his performance of his duties as mahant of the temple. The temple is situate at a place called Nayagaon in the territory of the jagirdar of Paldeo and it adjoins Chitrakot, a famous place of Hindu pilgrimage in the Banda District. To this temple there appertains another temple in manza Dhorahi also in the Banda District, and considerable landed property in the Banda District as well as in the adjoining Native States of Paldeo and Baraunda. Gobind Das, the last mahant of the temple, died on the 17th of July, 1907. On his death a dispute arose as to succession to the mahantship. The defendant Gobind Parpan Ramanuj Das, as it appears from the evidence, was installed as mahant by the leading mahants of Ohitrakot and he obtained a sanad confirming...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »