Allahabad Court January 1911 Judgments
Kehri Singh and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.476
1. The weight of authority militates against this appeal. The facts are these: One Man Singh executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain property on the 15th of February 1834 in favour of one Bhim Sen, who is the ancestor of the respondents. Subsequently, on the 10th of February 1878, he executed a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of Bhim Sen. Again, on the 11th of February 1873, he executed a simple mortgage in favour of one Bijai Pal Singh. Bijai Pal Singh instituted a suit on foot of his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale against the sons and widow of Man Singh on the 29th of February 1884. In execution of this decree the property was sold on the 20th of December 1888 to Ram Lal, a son of Bhim Sen. The sons of Bhim Sen obtained a decree for sale on foot of their mortgage of the 10th of February 1878 on the 9th of June 1885 and at a sale held in execution of that decree purchased the property. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Tirbeni Sahai and ors. Vs. Gokal Prosad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.475
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Gokul Prasad and Musammat Gangoli plaintiffs-respondents in this Court. They began by stating that in the mahal there was a separate patti of theirs, which had been in their proprietary possession, and that it had all along been included in a separate lot and had no connection with other pattis. In 1905 certain of the appellants who were owners of some pattis in the same mahal applied to the Revenue Court to have their pattis formed by partition into a single patti. The other pattidars made similar applications. The plaintiffs, however, abstained from the proceedings, as they were not interested in them and took no part in them from beginning to end. Before the partition had been confirmed and when the lots were prepared, they found that a certain plot bearing No. 43/1 which was actually in the defendants' proprietary possession had been included in the lot of the defendants, and plots Nos. 4.1/3 and 43/4 had remained in the plaintiffs' lo...
Tag this Judgment!Brijlal Sahu and ors. Vs. Rameshar Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.812
Karamat Hussain, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was for possession of certain land and for arrears of rent on the allegation that the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were not the tenants of the plaintiffs and that the suit was barred by limitation as they had been in adverse possession for more than twelve years before suit.2. The Court of first instance found that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs had not been in possession within twelve years of the institution of the suit, and that the suit, was barred by limitation.3. On these findings the Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The Court of first appeal confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court and it is argued by their learned Vakil that as the defendants set up adverse title the burden of proving that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation lay on ...
Tag this Judgment!Khubi and anr. Vs. Ramjas and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.856
Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the village but not in the patti in which the property sold in situated. The vendee is a stranger. The plaintiff bases his claim upon a provision of the wajib-ul-arz which gives a right of pre-emption first to brothers or descendants from the same stock; and, secondly, to hissedaran patti deh.2. From a rubkar of the Court of first instance on the record it appears that the original wajib-ul-arz was inspected by the Munsif who found that the words ran as set out above hissedaran patti deh. The Munsif was of opinion that the word deh was added after the writing of the words hissedaran patti. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by both the Courts below.3. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the words hissedaran patti deh should be interpreted as meaning co-sharers in the village and the patti. That would mean that we would have to read the original as hissedaran patti, va deh. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Amir Ali Vs. Sheikh Karam Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.456
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of possession of an occupancy-holding as mortgagee thereof. The tenant of the holding mortgaged it to one Selamat Ali who subsequently assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. After having mortgaged his holding the tenant relinquished it, and thereupon it is said the defendant, the zamindar, took possession of it. The plaintiff, as purchaser from the mortgagee, claims to recover possession on the ground that the tenant after having mortgaged the holding was not competent to relinquish it.2. The Court of first instance decreed the claim and the lower Appellate Court affirmed the decree.3. On second appeal to this Court the learned Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not brought it within six months of the date of the dispossession of himself or his vendor. The learned Judge apparently arrived at his finding on the question of dispossession on the basis of cer...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.494
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a right of pre-emption in reference to certain zemindari. On the 14th of May 1906 the original vendor sold the property to the defendant Ram Chander. On the 1st of August 1906 Ram Chander executed a sale-deed of the same property in favour of Kishun Lal for a sum of Rs. 3,500 of which the sum of Rs. 1,500 purported to have been paid in cash while a bond for Rs. 2,000 for the balance was given. The present suit was instituted on the 12th of November 1906. The village at the time of the sale was divided into two thoks. The plaintiffs were co-sharers in both thoks. Ram Chander, the original vendee, was an entire stronger. The vendee of the second sale, Kishan Lal, was a co-sharer in the thok other than that in which the pre-emptive property is situate. The Court of first instance gave a decree to the plaintiffs conditional on the payment of Rs. 2,836-15-0. On appeal the plaintiffs' right to pre-empt was upheld and the actual sale-cons...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyan Rai and anr. Vs. Hakim Muhammad Mustafa Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.562
1. The weight of authority supports the view taken by the learned Judge of this Court from whose decision this appeal has been preferred. The facts cannot be distinguished from those in the case of Tasadduk Husain Khan v. Ali Husain Khan A.W.N. (1908) 121 : 5 A.L.J.470 and in the recent case of Kanchan Singh v. Mani Ram 32 A. 201 : 5 Ind. Cas. 212 : 7 A.L.T. 213. In view of these authorities we dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ramcharan Vs. Lachman Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.667
Griffin, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the question raised in the appeal has become res judicata by reason of the plaintiff not having appealed against the decree passed in another appeal before the lower Court in which the same point was decided between the same parties against the appellant.2. The suit was one brought for the removal of certain constructions made by the defendant the next door neighbour of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction against the defendant. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree directing that a certain wall built by the defendant should be restored to its original height and dismissed the plaintiff's suit in respect of the other reliefs claimed by him. Against this decree both parties appealed. Both appeals were dealt with in one judgment. On the appeal by the defendant the lower Appellate Court held that owing to the delay in bringing the suit, the plaintiff was not now entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prashad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.497
1. On the 11th of February 1910, the Munsif of Phaphund acting under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal. Procedure issued an order directing that one Kamta Prasad be tried by a Criminal Court on a charge following under Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code. We are asked to revise this order on two grounds; first that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass the order and secondly that, if he had jurisdiction, the Munsif had improperly exercised this jurisdiction.2. The decree out of which all these proceedings have arisen was a decree passed by a Court in Calcutta. Execution proceedings were taken out and the decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsif of Phaphund.3. Upon the Munsif of Phaphund taking action the judgment-debtors appeared before him and stated that the decree had beed obtained by fraud. The learned Munsif held the view that, as a Court executing a decree, he had no alternative but to proceed with the decree as it stood. He overruled the objection of the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sheoraji Vs. Ramjas Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.501
1. The following pedigree will show the relation of the parties: Bhagwan Dat, (dead) _______________|____________________ | | Ram Gharib, (dead) Dudhnath, (dead)= | Moti Rani, (dead) __________________|____________________ | | | | | Ramjas Mahabir, Madho Ram, (dead) | Plaintiff. Plaintiff | | Bindraban, | Plaintiff. | ___________________| __________________________________|__________________________________ | | Aprup, (dead)= Musammat Sheoraji. Musammat Hansa | Sheomurat (dead)2. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandson of Ram Gharib. The defendants are Musammat Sheoraji and Musammat Hansa. The Court below finds that Ram Gharib and Dudhnath were separate, that Dudhnath died in the year 1891, that his son died next on the same day and that his grandson Sheomurat died a week after. These findings of fact are binding on us in second appeal. After the death of Dudhnath, Aprup and Sheomurat, the names of Moti Rani and Musammat Hansa were recorded. In the year 1908 Moti Rani purported to mak...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »