Allahabad Court August 1910 Judgments
Lachman Vs. Shambu NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.495
1. The sole question raised in this appeal is whether a plaintiff who sues for possession and for ejectment of the defendant on the basis of title and fails to prove his title is still entitled to a decree for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if he can prove possession within six months anterior to the date of his dispossession. As there are conflicting rulings in this Court on the point, the case has been referred to this Bench.2. The facts are these. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of a grove which he and his ancestors held rent free, that the defendants Nos. 3 to 11 were his co-sharers, that the first two defendants, who are the landholders of the village, wrongfully dispossessed him in July 1906 and let it to the 13th defendant and that he, plaintiff, as one of the owners of the grove, was entitled to be restored to possession. He accordingly brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, on the 7th of January 1907 for ejectment of the...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Hamira Bibi Vs. Musammat Zubaida Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.497
Karamat Husain, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Inayat Ullah, who died on the 10th of March 1892. Zubaida Bibi is his widow. Her dower, as found by this Court, (see 43, appellant's evidence) was one lakh of rupees and she was put into possession of theestate by her husband in lieu of her dower.2 .The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of her share (1 anna 2-2/5 pies out of 16 annas) in the estate in the possession of Zubaida Bibi on the allegation that Zubaida Bibi had been in possession of the said estate for more than 14 (fourteen) years, that her dower-debt of one lakh of rupees had been satisfied out of its usufruct, that she had realized a sum of Rs. 12,240-12-5 over and aboveher dowerand that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 918-2-0 out of the excess. The plaintiff expressed her willingness to pay a share of the dower-debt proportionate to her share in the estate in case it was found that the dower-debt wa...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Returaji DubaIn Vs. Pahalwan Bhagat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.680
John Stanley, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal lies in a narrow compass. The appeal arose out of a suit for pre-emption and the sole question is whether or not the record of the right of pre-emption contained in a wajib-ul-arz of the village of Deoria in the district of Gorakhpur, prepared at the Settlement of 1869, is a record of a right existing by custom or by contract. The plaintiff relies upon this wajib-ul-arz as establishing her claim, while the defendants rely also upon an earlier wajib-ul-arz of 1833, and contend that reading the two wajib-ul-arzes together, the right must be regarded as one arising out of contract. This is the view which was taken by the; two Lower Courts. In consequence of a recant decision of a Bench of this Court which is in conflict with earlier decisions, this appeal has been laid before a Full Bench.2. The heading to the paragraph in the wajib-ul-arz of 1833 which deals with pre-emption is Mode of sale or transfer of whole or part of shares. 'T...
Tag this Judgment!Roshan Lal Vs. the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.794
1. The question in this appeal is whether a purchaser who has repudiated a purchase is entitled to recover earnest money paid by him on entering into the contract. The contract in this case was for the purchase of 500 bales of cotton yarn, and the agreement was that the purchaser would deposit Rs. 5 per bale as earnest money with the defendant company; and that if that was not done within two days of the contract, the defendant company would be at liberty either to adhere to or cancel the contract. The purchaser paid a sum of Rs. 1,300 as earnest money, which left a balance of earnest money still unpaid. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that the purchaser repudiated the contract. He was guilty of two breaches: first of all, he failed to pay the entire earnest money agreed to be paid by him, and he also failed to take delivery of the goods and pay 1 for them. Upon these findings the lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. His suit was for recovery of the sum...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Prashad Vs. Syed Iftikhar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.759
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree passed on August 7, 1902. The present application was dated August 22, 1909. The last previous application was presented on July 26, 1906, i.e., more than 3 years before the present application. But the decree-holder contends that the present application is within time inasmuch as it was presented within three years of the deposit made by him of six annas on account of diet money for the judgment-debtor for whose arrest an order had been passed on the application of July 26, 1906. It appears that on September 3, 1906, a sum of 0-6-0 was paid into Court by means of the usual form of tender. The 'tender' is not signed by any one but the money was presumably paid into Court on behalf of the decree-holder. The decree-holder contends that this 'tender' amounts to an application to the Court to take some step-in-aid of execution of the decree. In the case of Thakur Ram v. Katwaru Ram 22 A. 358, it was held that the mere pa...
Tag this Judgment!Mattan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.914
Chamier, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code.2. It appears that one Ram Deo lodged a complaint against the applicant of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the case was made over to a Tahsildar Magistrate for trial The case had not proceeded far when the applicant presented a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate praying him to transfer the case from the Court of the Tahsildar Magistrate to some other Court. In the course of the petition, the applicant stated as one of the reasons for a transfer that the case had been instituted at the instance of the Tahsildar because the applicant had declined to accede to the Tahsildar's request that the applicant should stand security for a man named Manglia. The allegation was entirely without foundation. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Jawahir Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-05-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.926
John Stanley, C.J.1. The facts of this case, so far as it is necessary to state them for the purposes of this appeal, are these:-- A decree for sale was passed under Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act against several sets of defendants on the 12th of May, 1890, by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad. According to that decree a sum of Rs. 11,751-15-9 was directed to be paid by the appellant Abdul Majid, one of the judgment-debtors. He appealed from this decree to this Court and his appeal was dismissed on the 8th of April, 1893 He applied for and obtained leave to appeal to Her Late Majesty in Council. No steps, however, were taken to prosecute the appeal and it was dismissed for default of prosecution by the Privy Council on the 13th of May, 1901. The order of dismissal runs in these terms:--Their Lordships of the Committee in obedience to the said order in Council have proceeded to take into consideration the appeal of Chaudhri Abdul Majid, appellant, and Thakur Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Pershad and anr. Vs. Bhagwant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.768
1. This was a suit for preemption on the basis of a wajib-ul-arz. It was dismissed by the Court of first instance and its decree was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The preemptors come here in second appeal, and it is argued by their learned Vakil that the expression karabat karib hakkiat men means such sharers in another patti as are nearer in space to the property sold. The certified copy of the pre emption clause was not very clear and, therefore, I sent for the original wajib-ul-arz, the pre emption clause of which is 'Aindah ham sab shurka ko hasab ravaj wa shada amad kadeem apne hisse ke bai wa, rahn karne ka ikhtiar hasil hai. Lihaza jo koi sharik hissa, apna bazarye bai ya rahn ya thika ya istighrak intekal karna chahe, to awal shurkai zail patti mustahak lene intekal milkiat ke honge, jo woh na len, to digar shurkai patti majaz lene intikal ke honge aur bahalat inkar hissadaran patti mazkur, aur hissadaran dusre patti ke, jo karabat karib hakiat men rakhte hon, mustahak...
Tag this Judgment!Dakhni DIn and ors. Vs. Syed Ali Asghar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.909
1. An objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that the question raised in the appeal has become res judicata in consequence of the plaintiffs not having appealed against the judgment and decree in another suit in which the same issue was determined between these parties adversely to the appellants. The res judicata is alleged to have arisen out of the following facts. One Rabat Husain mortgaged certain property to Gaya Prasad, father of Bhawani Prasad and Raja Ram, defendants, on the 4th of January, 1883. On the l3th of February, 1890, he mortgaged the same property to Bhawani Prasad, Raja Ram and Birj Mohan, the sons of Gaya Prasad. On the 12th of September, 1891, he executed a mortgage in favour of Musammat Nidhoo Kunwar. The suit of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff to enforce nine subsequent mortgages some of which were in favour of the plaintiff Dakhni Din and some in favour of his deceased brother T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›