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.
Bhagirathi Vs. Jokhu Ram Upadhia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.465
Richards, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage. The facts are that one Madho Singh and one Bindesri Singh were own brothers. Bhagwati Singh was the son of Madho Singh. Bhagwati Singh married for the first time and had a son named Bhagirath Singh who is the principal defendant in the suit and the sole appellant in this Court. The first wife of Bhagwati having died, he married a second time. At the time of this marriage Bhagwati Singh and Bindesri Singh, as managing members of a joint Hindu family, executed the bond which is the foundation of the present suit. The property mortgaged was joint family property and it has been found by the Courts below that the money which was raised on the bond was applied in making a payment to the father of the second wife of Bhagwati Singh. In other words, it was the price paid for the bride. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant, first, that the marriage expense of a member of a ...
Lala Anant Parshad and anr. Vs. Sri Maharajah Perbhu NaraIn Singh Kash ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.456
1. The point, which we have to determine in this appeal, is whether the claim brought by the respondent is or is not time-barred against the appellants. The respondent is the Maharajah of Benares. The appellant No. 1 is one who up to the 19th September 1905 was one of the Sajawals appointed by the Maharajah for collecting rents due from tenants; appellant No. 2 is a person who stood surety for appellant No. 1 and contracted to pay any liability that might be lawfully due from appellant No. 1. Part of the contract between the respondent and appellant No. 1 was to, the effect that should it be found at any time that any sums due to the Maharajah had become time-barred owing to the neglect of appellant No. 1, such sums should be recovered from him or appellant No. 2 as his surety. The plaintiff--the respondent here--in his plaint sets out that a sum of Rs. 1,229 odd was due from tenants and had become time barred owing to negligence on the part of the defendant No. 1 and he prays that it ...
Mohammad Yakub and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.454
ORDER1. The applicants seek to set aside in revision an order of Thakur Hanuman Singh, Magistrate of the 1st Class, dated 12th March 1910. By this order the Magistrate bound over the fifteen applicants under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Applicants are Jolahas, resident of Bahadurgunj in the Ghazipore District. The Magistrate describes them in his order as the leading and more influential men' among the jolahas.3. We think it necessary to state the view of the facts we take, because such view may not be quite consistent with some passages in the order of the learned Magistrate. Nevertheless we think our view thereof is correct and that this clearly appears not only from a perusal of the Police reports and evidence, but also from the order of the Magistrate himself, reading the latter as a whole. In the year 1893, the leaders of the Mohammadans and Hindus assembled in Ghazipur and came to an agreement that they would mutually abstain as far as possible from doing anything to h...
Jai NaraIn Vs. Mitthu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.375
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage dated the 30th August 1880. This mortgage was created by one Deo Sukh in favour of one Gokul Chand whose sons are now the plaintiffs-respondents. In 1887 Deo Sukh created a second mortgage of the same property in favour of one Bhola Math. The latter brought a suit on his mortgage in 1894 impleading only the mortgagor. The prior mortgagee, however, applied to the Court to be made a party to the suit and was so impleaded. The puisne mortgagee put him to the proof of his mortgage and an issue was framed and tried as to whether the prior mortgage was for consideration and also whether or not it had been paid off. The mortgagor himself did not contest the validity of the prior mortgage in any way. The Court held that the prior mortgage was a good one for consideration and had not been paid off and under the law, as it was then understood in these provinces', it ordered the puisne mortgagee Bhola Nath to redeem the prior ...
Baldeo Singh Vs. Mardan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.425
1. I his appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the proprietor of a certain plot of land and for a similar declaration with regard to another plot and for possession of the latter plot. The first paragraph of the plaint is not quite correctly translated. It is there alleged, that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title for more than fifty years held the land as a charitable gift made by the zemindars. Properly translated, the allegation is that the plaintiff's predecessor held the land under a rent free grant from the zemindars for charitable purposes. It appears that in 1905 the present defendants sued under Section 150 of the Agra Tenancy Act for resumption of possession. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal to the Commissioner the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was premature, no notice of the intention to resume having been served. In 1906, similar suit was brought under the same section -which resulted in a d...
Abdul Shakur Vs. Abdul Ghafur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1910
Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.358
1. The question raised in this appeal is a narrow one. In the suit, (sic) of which it has arisen, the plaintiff-appellants claimed to be entitled to pre-empt a sale of few bighas of land in Mauza Inampur, which were sold by the defendant Musammat Najiban to the defendants-respondents Abdul. Ghafur and Abdul Shakur. The parcel of land so sold comprised two plots Nos. 833 anti 834 and also a part of plot No. 836. The' plaintiff is a share-holder in a plot of land No. 837, which adjoins portion of plot No. 836, which with the other two plots forms the subject-matter of the sale. The claim of the plaintiff to pre-empt is based on a provision of the wajib-ul-arz of the Tillage according to which it has been rightly held that the rule of the Muhammadan Law as to pre-emption applies. The plaintiff claims the right to pre-empt by virtue of vicinage. Plot No. 836, as we have said, adjoins the plaintiff's holding; plot No. 834 adjoins plot No. 836; and plot No. 833 adjoins plot No. 834. The subj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›