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.
Jagannath Vs. Gola and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.261
Banerji, J.1. The only question in this appeal, which has arisen out of a suit for pre-emption, is whether the plaintiffs have a preferential right of pre-emption in respect of the property purchased by the vendee-appellant. The wajib-ul-arz provides for two classes of preemptors, first, the nearest relative of all, who owns a share in the village, and, second, any other co-sharer in the same patti or thok. The plaintiffs claim to be the nearest relation of the vendor, as also his co-sharers. The vendee also is a co-sharer of the vendor, but it was found by the Court of first instance that either he is no relative of the vendor or is a very remote relative. On this point the lower appellate Court has expressed no opinion. But both the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs are the nearest relatives of the vendor and own a share in the village. Those Courts accordingly have held that the plaintiffs have a preferential right of pre-emption. It is contended in this appeal that under ...
Mulla Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.684
1. The facts out of which this appeal arose are as follows: A suit, not the present suit, was brought to enforce a mortgage. There had been five mortgages affecting the property. One Jagannath represented the mortgagors, and he was the principal defendant to the suit. The plaintiff in that suit who was the 4th mortgagee had paid off the first three. Narain Prasad represented the 2nd mortgagee who had been paid off and also in part represented the 5th mortgage. Mulla also in part represented the 5th mortgagee as an assignee from Narain Prasad. Narain Prasad in his written statement admitted the plaintiff's claim, and as to his own mortgage he stated that he would bring an independent suit. Mulla in his written statement, which was a separate written statement from that of Narain Prasad, stated that he had nothing to do with the property, and that the real person interested was Narain Prasad. Jagannath disputed the first four mortgages and succeeded in getting in the first instance the s...
Ganpat Singh and ors. Vs. Musai Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.695
Banerji, J.1. The only question in the appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is or is not time-barred. The property in dispute is a part of a cultivatory holding which belonged to one Ganga Bishen He died leaving four sons, namely, Ram Lal the father of the plaintiffs, Pahalwan, the grand father of the defendant and Sundar Singh and Debi Singh, who predeceased their brothers, leaving them surviving their widows Musammats Rakeba Kunwar and Param Sundar respectively. In 1871 there was litigation between Ram Lal, Pahalwan and the two widows with the result that the widows were given their husbands' shares to be held for life for their maintenance and that those shares were to pass equally to Ram Lal and Pahalwan upon the death of the widows. The two widows are now dead and the plaintiffs claim a half share of the property which stood in their names but of which the defendant has taken exclusive possession upon the death of the widows. The plaintiffs alleged in their pla...
Ram Saran and anr. Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.704
Karamat Husain, J1. The facts of the case are that on the 18th. of July 1902, the defendants executed a zarpeshgi lease in respect of their sir land in favour of the plaintiff for 14 years from 1310 to 1323 F. in lieu of Rs. 300, with a statement at the end of the lease to the effect that 'If the lessee does not get possession of the land, he will be entitled to recover possession by suit or to recover the money advanced with interest at the rate of Re. 1-6 per mensem, personally from the executants and from their property of every description.' The defendants failed to deliver possession of the sir to the plaintiff, whoinstituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the recovery of principal and interest. The relief claimed by him was '(a) Rs. 300, the amount of principal, and Rs. 188 0-9, the amount of interest, in. all, Rs. 488-0-9, with interest pendente lite and future interest and costs of the suit, with interest up to the date of the realisation, may be awarded aga...
Thakur Dayal Rai Vs. Bhagwat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.540
Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff, who is a lessee from one Hem Karan Gir, a tenant holding at fixed rates, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the defendant, who is a sub-tenant, to recover arrears of rent. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in part, but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it on the ground that having regard to the provisions of Section 34 Clause (5) of Act III of 1901, the suit could not be entertained as the plaintiff had not got his name recorded as the lessee of Hem Karan Gir. The lease, under which the plaintiff claims title, is dated the 6th of March 1900 and came into operation and the plaintiff obtained possession under it before Act III of 1901 came into force. Clause (5) of Section 34 is a new provision and did not exist in the old Act. It cannot, therefore, have retrospective effect. As the plaintiff's lease was of a date prior to that on which the new Act came into force and it had taken effect before the new Act was enfor...
Rup Ram Vs. Musammat Rewati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.541
Richards, J.1. This Appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain zemindari and horse property. It appears that the property in dispute was originally the property of Narain Das, who died leaving him surviving Musammat Reoti, his widow, and Musammat Durga, his daughter. On the 3rd of December 1894, Musammat Reoti by a deed of gift, after reciting that she was in possession of her husband's estate, who had died without a son, and leaving Musammat Durga his daughter, made an absolute gift of the property in favour of Musammat Durga who was then a child aged about 5 years. Musammat Durga died in the year 1900, and the present suit was instituted on the 27th of August 1907. Apparently Musammat Reoti has remained all along in possession. It is said, however, that no question of limitation arises, because, the plaintiff Rup Ram, the husband of Musammat Durga, was a minor. The claim of Rup Ram is as heir to Musammat Durga, and it is contended that the effect...
Mahraji Vs. Dwarka and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.702
Banerji, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal in a suit for pre-emption. The property sold is comprised in two villages, Deoria Granga and Siara Santha. There is no controversy in this appeal in regard to the property first mentioned. As regards the other property, namely, the share in Siara Santha, the purchasers are Dwarka Singh and Mohan Singh. It has been found that Nandan the third purchaser has not purchased the share in that village. It has further been found that the two vendees of that village and the plaintiff are co-sharers of the vendor in the same khata. The plaintiff asserts that she had priority of right because she is related to the vendor, the vendor being the elder brother of her husband. Under the wajib-ul-arz, a hissadar karibi has a right of pre-emption superior to that of any other hissadar in the village. The question is whether the words 'hissadar karibi' mean nearness in blood or nearness in share. The Courts below have held that they mean nearness in space and ...
Sokhai Vs. Ram Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.486
Chamier, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of two plots of land. The case of the plaintiff appellant was that he was an occupancy tenant of the plots and was in peaceable possession thereof up to the year 1907, when the defendant dispossessed him. The defendant's case is that he did not dispossess the plaintiff and that he has held the plots as tenant of the Raja of Manda for the last ten years. He pleaded also that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that he was an occupancy tenant or had been in occupation of the plots at any time within 12 years before the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge maintained the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was a trespasser. Having carefully considered the judgment of the learned Judge, I have come to the conclusion that what he intended to hold was that the defe...
Beni and ors. Vs. Puran Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.572
George Knox, J.1. The land in dispute in this second appeal is situate in Mouza Bama-puri Kalan, Purganah Kalpi, zila Julaun in the Thok Daya Ram lambardar. Khata No. 5 was in the proprietary possession till recently of Harju respondent to this appeal, and half was owned by Puran Singh respondent and several other persons, relations of his, with whom we are not concerned in this second appeal. The appellants are landholders of Khata No. 9 of Thok Beni of the same Maha name unknown, and in this Khati and Thok the respondent Harju holds no land. Beni and Khup Chand have recently purchased the land in dispute from Harju. Upon purchasing the land, Puran Singh the respondent instituted the claim for pre-emption out of which this second appeal has arisen ; he bases his claim upon custom prevalent in the village evidenced by the entries in two village records-of-rights, the one prepared at the Settlement of 1865 and the second prepared at the Settlement of 1884-1885. The custom as recorded in...
Babu Baij Nath Singh Vs. Gajraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.464
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits, instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff applied for restoration of the suit but that application was refused. The plaintiff then appealed to the District Judge and the District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case for trial on its merits. It is admitted -here that the order of the learned District Judge was passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as no appeal lay from the order of the Assitsant Collector refusing to restore the suit The Assistant Collector on the case being re-mitted to him decreed the suit in part. The defendant then appealed to the District Judge. It was then pleaded that the order of the District Judge remanding the case was without jurisdiction and that the Court of first instance, therefore, could not have entertained the suit. This plea was overruled and the District Judge dismissed the appeal, ihe defendants came in second appeal to this Court and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »