Allahabad Court July 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.
Amer Chand Vs. Nathu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.408
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The plaintiff in the plaint claimed also damages in the alternative. The defendants, Nathu and Nand Lal, are the minor sons of one Bisauri. Their mother and guardian, Musammat Des Rani, entered into an agreement for sale of certain property to the plaintiff. The purchase money, i.e., Rs. 364-12-6, was the amount due on a mortgage which was executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The sale was sanctioned by the Collector and the sale-deed was drawn up and executed on behalf of the minor defendants by Musammat Des Rani. She subsequently repudiated the transaction and refused to have the deed registered. No steps were taken under the Registration Act for the compulsory registration of the document, and the time for doing so was allowed to elapse. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for, as we have said, specific performanc...
Sheikh Ali HusaIn Objector Vs. Sheikh Rafi-ul-lah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.707
Chamier, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor. The only question for decision is whether or not the respondents' application for execution, which was made on the 16th of June 1909, is within limitation. The decree was passed on the 2nd of May, 1903. The first application for execution was made on the 31st of March 1905. The present application which was made as already stated on June 16, 1909, appears at first sight to be beyond time. But the first application for execution was dismissed on the objection of the judgment-debtor that the property sought to be attached was not liable to attachment. That order was set aside by the High Court on 11th March 1907, when it was held that the property was liable to attachment. The present application was made within 3 years from that date. The decree-holders contend that they are entitled to 3 years under Article 178, Schedule II, of the Limitation Act of 1877 from the date of the High Court's order. The case is exactly like that of Qamar...
Sheikh Muhammad Yakub Vs. Mangru Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.318
1. The right claimed by the plaintiff is not in controversy in this appeal. The learned counsel for the defendants respondents has not contested his right. The case which he set up is that the lower appellate Court was right in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that at the date of the institution of the suit, no cause of action existed against his client as there had been no infringement or threatened infringement of the plaintiff's right by them. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit was bound to fail on this ground and also on the ground that, by a document dated the 23rd of January 1908, to which was affixed the thumb impression of the plaintiff, the plaintiff took a solemn vow that he would not resort to any litigation in respect of the slaughter of cows and, therefore, it was not open to him to institute the present suit.2. It appears that proceedings were taken by the District Magistrate against certain Muhammadans under Section 107 of the Code of ...
Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.739
Chamier, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for pre-emption based upon a wajib-ul-arz, which gives the right to preempt first to full brothers and nephews, and after them to the person, on whom the inheritance will devolve: Bhai bhatija haqiqi ke bad jisko warasat pahunchegi wuh pawega. The vendor has two nephews, Lachhman Das and Param Sukh. But they witnessed the deed of sale and do not claim pre-emption of the property. In the absence of these two nephews, the nearest heirs are the plaintiffs, who are first cousins, once removed, of the vendor. The first Court decreed the claim subject to the payment of Rs. 3,800. The lower appellate Court agreed with the first Court that the real consideration for the sale was Rs. 3,800, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had no right to pre-empt the property under the wajib-ul-arz. Apart from authority, I should have said that the wajib-ul-arz should be construed as providing for two classes of pre-emptors, na...
Abdullah Khan and ors. Vs. Banke Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.183
Banerji, J.1. This is an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure for an injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding with the sale of certain property which he has caused to be attached in execution of a decree. The decree was obtained by him against one Sheo Narain and in execution of it he caused certain immovable property to be attached. The plaintiffs applicants preferred an objection to the attachment on the allegation that the property had been sold to them by the judgment-debtor Sheo Narain, and that it was not liable to sale in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent. Their objection having been overruled they instituted a suit under Section 283 of Act No. XIV of 1882 for a declaration of their title to the property. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance and from the decree of that Court a first appeal has been preferred to this Court which is now pending, The applicants have presented this application for an ad ...
Zaharia Vs. Debi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.156
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question for our determination in this appeal is one of the application of the rule of res judicata. The appeal has been laid before a Bench of three Judges owing to the recent decision in Damodar Dass v. Sheo Ram Dass 29 A. 730 : A.W.N. (1907) 245 : 4 A.L.J. 587, which is in conflict with the earlier decisions of this Court.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for preemption. The defendants Deba, Musammat Kesar and Musammat Jawitri on 9th of August 1907 sold certain zamindari property in the village of Newari to Bhuri Singh and two others. Thereupon two rival suits for pre-emption were instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad, one by Manphul, which was No. 1404 of 1908, and the other by the appellant Zahariya; which was No. 1405 of 1908. By order of the Court, Zahariya was made a defendant in suit No. 1404 and Manphul was made a defendant in suit No. 1405 with the object of having their respective rights determined. For corvenience sake both suits were...
Dharam Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.412
Tudball, J.1. The facts of the case out of which this application for revision has arisen may briefly be stated as follows:--Two parties claimed title to certain mahua trees. One patty apparently was in possession and peaceably engaged in gathering the fruit when the opposite party arrived armed with lathis drove them away, and took pessession. In the course of the riot, grievous hurt was inflicted by some member or members of the applicants, the aggressive party. The two present applicants have been convicted by a Magistrate of the second class and have been sentenced for the offence of riot under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, to six months' rigorous imprisonment each, and for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, to three months' rigorous imprisonment each, i.e., to a total of nine months' rigorous imprisonment each. The applicants appealed to the District Magistrate who dismissed their appea...
Jaddo Kuar Vs. Sheo Shanker Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.902
Chamier, J.1. The following table will help to elucidate the statement of facts:BHUABAL BHAGAT________________________|___________________________________| | | | |Bhoj Ram. Kunji Ram. Bisheshar Ram Hira Ram Jawahir Ram.| | |Sheo Shanker Dwarka Ram, Dhondhi Ram,Ram, plaintiff No. 5. defendant No. 14plaintiff No. 1 || Sheo Prasad Ram,Mathura Ram, plaintiff No. 4.plaintiff No. 2Bishnath Ram,plaintiff No. 3.2. Bhuabal Bhagat and his descendants, who were joint in every respect, carried on an ancestral business in srji, sugar, and groceries under the style of Bhuabal Bhagat Bhoj Ram. They also did a litlle money lending and owned some zamindari property. After the death of Bhuabal Bhagat and five of his sons the management of the family business and properly came into the hands of Hira Ram and Dhondhi Ram. On July 4th, 1894, the two last named advanced money belonging to the family upon a mortgage of some villages, already mortgaged to the appellant, and on July 26th, 1894, they purchased w...
J. O'Brien Donaghey and Ors. Vs. George Weatberdon and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.201
1. The Suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was one for the recovery of rent of a furnished house in Mussoorie, known as Church View Terrace. On the 9th of April 1905, this house was let to the defendants at a rental of Rs. 700 to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 100. Shortly before the defendants had taken possession, an earthquake had occurred, namely on the 4th of April 1905, and many of the houses in Massoorie were damaged thereby. A Mr. Keelan, a retired Engineer, was appointed by the Municipality to examine houses which were damaged by this earthquake, and on the 21st of April, he made an examination of the plaintiff's house apparently at the request of one of the plaintiffs and he gave a certificate in the following terms: 'The building does not seem in imminent danger of collapse, but the south-west corner, room would come down under another shock. Repairs should be immediately carried out and the south-west rooms be at once vacated.' Upon receiving this certificate,...
Haji Hasan Ali Vs. Mian Jan Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.409
1. For the purposes of this second appeal it is necessary to note that the appellant, Hasan Ali, purchased a share in a certain mahal at an auction sale on the 20th of June, 1907. The sale did not become absolute until the 24th of July, 1907. On the 23rd of July, 1907, one Mianjan Khan, a share-holder in the same mahal, sold his share by private sale to one Muhammad Taqi. The present appellant has brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to enforce under the wajib-ul-arz his right to pre-empt the share sold by Mianjan Khan to Muhammad Taqi. Both the Courts below dismissed the claim, on the ground that the plaintiff was not a share-holder in the property in respect of which he claims the right to preempt at the time when the share was sold, namely, the 23rd of July, 1907.2. In appeal to this Court it was contended that the appellant acquired his title from the date of sale and not from the date of confirmation of the sale. Looking to the terms of Section 316 of the Code of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »