Allahabad Court May 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 Ram Baran Rai and ors. Vs. Kamla Parshad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.698
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff claiming as a next reversioner to Bindhachal Rai to obtain a declaration that he is entitled to the estate of the deceased after the death of his mother, Musammat Rajwanti Kunwar, and that a deed of compromise, dated the 5th June 1908, was void and ineffectual as against him. In paragraph 5 of the plaint he stated that the defendant first party had brought a suit against Rajwanti Kunwar to recover possession of the property left by Bindhachal Rai, that they colluded and on the 5th of June 1908, filed a compromise in the suit to the effect that the defendant 2nd party (i.e. Rajwanti Kunwar) would remain the owner and possessor of the property left by Bindhachal Rai as long as she was alive, and ihat after her death the defendant first party would become entitled to the possession of the aforesaid property. In paragraph 6, the plaintiff urged that this compromise was prejudicial to him as according to Hindu Law he is the heir o...
Bhim Sen and ors. Vs. Moti Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.181
John Stanley, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the right set up by them was a right existing by contract and not by custom and that the period for which the contract was entered into having expired, the right came to an end. The same view was taken by the learned District Judge upon appeal to him. Hence this appeal to the High Court.2. In consequence of a conflict in the decisions of the Court in regard to the construction of wajih-ul-arzes in the District of Shahjahanpur, corresponding to the wajib-ul-arz before us in this case, the appeal was sent to a larger Bench so that there might be a binding decision of the Court upon the true meaning of the pre-emptive clause in the wajib-ul-arz before us, and similar clauses in other wajib-ul-arzes in regard to the right of pre-emption. The wajib-ul-arz runs thus: 'If a co-sharer has to sell and mortgage his Hakeat and a mortgagee has to sub-mor...
Muhammad Salim Vs. Sadar-ud-dIn Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.263
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-mption of zamindari property consisting of shares in 47 villages in the Azamgarh district. The plaintiff based his claim to pre-empt this property upon a custom of pre-emption as set out in the wajib-ul-arzes of the villages and also on the principles of Muhammadan Law. The plaintiff claimed to be the hissadar qaribi of the vendor and as such entitled to pre-empt as against the vendee. The Court below found in plaintiff's favour and decreed the suit in full except as regards one village, viz., Chak Girwi in which it was held that both plaintiff and the pre-emptor had equal rights, and it was directed that the plaintiff could obtain half the share in Chak Girwi upon payment of Rs. 30. The defendant-vendee appeals against this decree. The learned Advocates in this case have gone through the wajib-ul-arzes in the remaining 46 villages and have satisfied themselves that in all these wajib-ul-arzes there is a right of pre-emption recorded in favou...
Sayid Amir HusaIn Vs. Musammat Imtiaz Fatima and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.503
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Naqi Ali executed a mortgage of certain plots in favour of one Ata Husain on the 16th of November 1892. The mortgage-money was Rs. 100. The terms of the mortgage were that the mortgagee should realize the rents from the tenants of the land, should appropriate Rs. 7-8 to himself, and pay the balance of the rent amounting to one rupee to the mortgagor every year, and that on payment of the entire mortgage-money (kid zar-i-rehan) the mortgagor would be entitled to redeem. The representative-in-title of the mortgagor brought an action against the representative-in-title of the mortgagee for redemption and he claimed a deduction from the mortgage-money of Re. 1 a year. The Court of first, instance decreed the claim directing the plaintiff to deposit in Court Rs. 32 within 6 months. On appeal the-decree was reversed by the lower appellate Court which came to the conclusion that under the terms of the mortgage-deed the mortgagor was bound to pay the entire mortgage-mo...
Pandit Badri Prasad Vs. Dila
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.542
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant to secure compulsory registration of a document, the registration of which had been refused by the District Registrar. One Musammat Janki executed a document on the 15th of January 1907, infavour partly of the appellant and partly of a thakurdwra. Under this document she transferred certain property to the appellant and the rest was consecrated to the temple. She died on the 18th of January 1907. On the 15th of May 1907, the very last day allowed for presentation of the document for registration, the appellant appeared before a Sub-Registrar. On the 27th of May, the Sub-Registrar refused to register for certain reasons. The appellant then appealed to the District Registrar who, on the 11th of July 1907, rejected the appeal on the ground that it had been presented out of time, that is, not within the 30 days allowed by law. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen. In his p...
Kalicharan and ors. Vs. Musammat Utmi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.581
1. This and the connected Appeals Nos. 598 and 629 of 1909, arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed, amongst other tilings, a declaration of their title as heirs to certain property. It appears that the last owner of the property was one Bisheshar Kori, who had a son Sheonandan Kori who married Musammat Utmi defendant No. 1. Sheonandan Kori predeceased his father leaving his widow the said Musammat (sic), Bisheshar Kori during his life-time made an application in the Revenue Court in which he stated that he had no heir except Musammat Utmi, that she was in possession with him, and that he wished her name to be recorded along with his own. This was with respect to 2 bighas out of 8 bighas fixed-rate tenure. It has been found that the plaintiffs are the next heirs of Bisheshar Kori assuming him to have died intestate. Musammat Utmi, after the death of her father-in-law, mortgaged the property to Sheo Rachli defendant No. 2. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's ...
Debi Sahai and anr. Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.572
1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of two mortgages. The rate of interest was Rs. 1-14 per. cent per mensem with yearly rests. The first bond was dated the 5th of August 1897, for Rs. 215 and the second was dated 5th December 1899 for Rs. 99 The total amount claimed was Rs. 1,270-9 after allowing payment of Rs. 150. The only question is whether or not the Court below was justified in reducing interest from the contractual rate of' Rs. 1-14 per cent. per mensem compound interest with yearly rests to Rs. 24 per cent. per annum simple interest. The learned Judge says: The defendants pleaded that the rate of interest was hard and unconscionable,' and he then goes on to cite cases upon which he relies as authorities for the proposition that the Court can of its own motion reduce in-interest as unconscionable. He says: 'It has been laid down that in the case of at unconscionable bargain, a Court can interfere in the absence of undue influence or penal clauses to reduce interest. The...
Musammat Nathia and ors. Vs. Kewal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.697
Karamat Husain, J.1. The facts of the case are these:Prem and Har Sahai instituted a suit against Musammat Nathia and Musammat Rukia. In that suit, the parties compromised their dispute on the 14th of September 1892. At the end of the compromise, it was said that the defendants Nathia and Rukia would continue to be the owners in possession of the sir land. A decree in the terms of the compromise was passed on the 14th of September 1892 in which the plaintiffs' claim was decreed but there was no mention regarding the continuation of the sir land in the possession of Nuthia and Rukia. On the basis of the said decree, Prem and the representatives of Har Sahai, applied for mutation of names and objection was taken by Nathia and Rukia. The dispute was again compromised on the 17th of July and a joint application by Prem, the representatives of Har Sahai, Nathia and Rukia was made. In the application it was distinctly stated that Wathia and Rukia were the owners and in possession of the sir ...
Syed Ali Ahmad Vs. Musammat Said-un-nisa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.703a
1. In view of the judgment-delivered on the 16th of May in Appeal No. 159 of 1909 under the Letters Patent Waris Ali Khan v. Parsotam Narain 6 Ind. Cas. 609, it is admitted that this appeal must succeed. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the learned Judge of this Court as also the decrees of both the lower Courts and inasmuch as these decrees are based on the ruling in Bechan Singh v. Karan Singh 30 A. 447 : A.W.N. (1903) 186 : 5 A.L.J. 495 and a Full Bench of this Court has overruled that decision, we direct that the case, which has been decided upon a preliminary point, be sent back to the Court of first instance through the lower appellate Court with a direction that it be re-listed in the file of pending suits and be disposed of according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event....
Syed Abid HusaIn Vs. Musammat Asuda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.696
Karamat Husain, J.1. One Khadim Hussain married twice. Abid Husain is his son by the first wife. Asuda Bibi is his second wife. Her son by him was Ata Hussain. He died in her life-time, leaving a son Raza Husain and a daughter Abadi. In 1908, Khadim Husain instituted a suit against Asuda Bibi, Raza Hussain and Abadi for a declaration that he was in possession of the property which stood in the name of Asuda and which she by a deed of gift, dated the 23rd of March 1907, transferred to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The defence of Abadi was that Khadim Husain was originally the owner of the property, that he made a gift of it to Asuda in lieu of her dower, who held possession for more than 12 years and that the suit was, therefore, barred by limitation as well as by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court of first instance in its judgment, dated the 5th of September 1908, came to the conclusion that the claim was barred by limitation as well as by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »