Allahabad Court January 1911 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.
Chandra Deo Missera and ors. Vs. Harpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.293
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought possession of zemindari share in some eight villages. The property was purchased on the 20th of June 1881 in the name of one Baldeo Sahai. At that time shares in eighteen villages wore purchased. The plaintiffs are the brothers and a nephew of Baldeo Sahai. The property which is sought to be recovered in the present suit is part but not all which was comprised in the sale-deed. Part of the property, the subject matter of this suit, was mortgaged by Baldeo Sahai first of all on the 31st of August 1885. This mortgage was really a renewal of the mortgage dated the 3rd of December 1880. We are perfectly satisfied that the mortgage of the 3rd of December 1880, which was renewed as already mentioned by the mortgage of the 31st August 1885, was executed for the purpose of raising in part the purchase-money required for the purchase of the property, the subject-matter of the sale-deed of the 20th of June 1581. On the 28th of Fe...
Sheikh Ghulam Hazrat and ors. Vs. Gobardhan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.933
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiffs-appellants under the following circumstances: Muhammad Amin, the seventh defendant, mortgaged on the 28th of October, 1895, the northern mahal of the village Daranagar without any reservation to one Gulzari Lal. On the 27th of April, 1896, he mortgaged to the same mortgagee all his rights and interests in the northern mahal and a 2 1/2 biswas share in the southern mahal together with its appurtenances. Gulzari Lal brought a suit for sale on both mortgages and obtained a decree on the 17th of April, 1905. The total amount decreed to him was Rs. 8,732-14-0. He assigned the decree to one Kamla Dat, who took out execution of it and caused the Mortgaged property to be advertised for sale. On the 11th of September, 1907, Muhammad Amin made a usufructuary mortgage of his share in the northern mahal excluding the miscellaneous property appurtenant to that mahal in favour of the plaintiffs. The amount of the mortgage...
Babu Sarju Parshad and ors. Vs. Babu Bindeshari Bakhsh Pal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.298
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants to enforce a mortgage of the 20th of August 1895 made by the defendant Bindeshri Baksh Pal Singh for himself and as general attorney of his brother's widow Musammat Lakhpat Kunwari in favour of Hari Singh, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The property comprised in the mortgage consisted of a 6 annas 8 pie share in the village Rusia, a 2 annas 8 pie share in the village Tejpur and a 2 annas 8 pie share in a third village Nakahi Nagani. There is no controversy in this appeal as regards the share in Tejpur. The Court below has made a decree for the sale of that share and also of a 2 annas 8 pie share in Nakahi Nagahi. As regards the share in Mouza Rusia, it has dismissed the claim. That share was purchased at auction in execution of a decree obtained on an earlier mortgage by Musammat Jairaj Kunwar, the wife of the first defendant. The share in Nakahi Nagahi was sold by the mortgagors to the re...
Lala Jagmohan Lal and anr. Vs. Lakha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.264
Griffin, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover damages on account of the value of timber appropriated by the defendants who were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Sambhal the presiding officer of which, at the time when the suit was instituted, was an officiating Munsif why had no Small Cause Court powers. The suit was registered as a regular suit. It came for hearing before the permanent Munsif, Pandit Bishen Lal Sharma who had the powers of a Small Cause Court. The suit was, however, tried as a regular suit and resulted in a decree in plaintiffs' favour for the sum of Rs. 2. The defendants appealed to the learned District Judge, who held that the tree, the timber of which had been removed by the defendants, stood in a grove, which was part of the occupancy holding of the defendants, and was the property of the defendants. On this finding, he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs come here in revision, the ground taken being th...
Surajbali Vs. Nakched Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.276
Karamat Husain, J.1. This was a suit for preemption on the basis of a wajib-ul-arz. That wajib-ul-arz divides pre-emptors into the three following classes: (1) hissadar karibi (2), other hissadaran of the thoke and (3) hissadars in other thokes. The thokes in the village in question as found by the lower appellate Court are sub-divided into khewats. The property in dispute, the share of the vendee and that of the pre emptor are situate in the one and the same khewat. The Court of first instance interpreted the term hissadar karibi to mean a co-sharer who is nearer in space than some other person and dismissed the claim. This interpretation was upheld by the Court of first appeal. The pre-emptor preferred a second appeal to this Court and his learned Vakil contended that the expression hissadar karibi in the wajib-ul-arz in this case meant a blood relation. In support of this contention he relied on Sukhdeo Singh v. Bahadur Singh 1 A.L.J. 272 : A.W.N. (1904) 104 : 26 A. 544 and Lok Sing...
Khargai Vs. Debi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.339
1. The last male owner of the property in suit was one Bishen. The plaintiff who claims his property is his sister's son. The defendant who is in possession is the son of his father's uncle's daughter. According to the table of Bandhus given at page 785 of Mayne's Hindu Law, 7th Edition, the plaintiff comes in as No. 3 in proximity of relationship as compared with the defendant who is No. 8. In view of this authority it appears to me that the decision of the Court below was right. I dismiss this appeal with costs....
Mazhar HusaIn Khan Vs. Abdul Hadi Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.753
John Stanley, C.J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen claims possession of 286 out of 512 sihams of zemindari property situate in the villages of Mawaya and Surahi in the District of Shahjahanpur and also mesne profits. The property claimed belonged to Muhammad Altaf Ali Khan, the cousin of the plaintiff, who died so far back as the 27th of November, 1875. He had no issue, and on his death the following were his heirs: Abdulla Khan, father of the plaintiff, Husain Raza Khan, uncle of the plaintiff, and Musammat Barkat-un-nissa, his widow, who was step-sister of the plaintiff. The dower of Musammat Barkat-un-nissa is said to have been Rs. 1,25,000. On the death of her husband she entered into possession of his property, and amongst others the villages of Mawaya and Surahi. On the 21st of, June, 1898, Musammat Barkat-un-nissa executed a deed of endowment of the lands situate in these villages and appointed herself mutwalli during her life, and after her death...
Durga Prasad and anr. Vs. Lala Jai NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.265
1. The sole ground of appeal in this case is that the lower appellate Court erred in deciding the appeal without taking additional evidence and that this irregularity prejudiced the appellants' case. The suit was for the price of stock in trade alleged to have been sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Some of the defendants did not dispute the claim but the appellants, Durga Prasad and Sital Prasad, filed written statements in which they alleged that no cloth was received in the defendants' shop nor had the plaintiffs any shop for the sale of cloth at any time. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim, and an appeal was thereupon preferred by the defendants-appellants. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was made to the lower appellate Court to have certain documents including Railway receipts and certain account books sent for. This application was ordered to be put up with the record, no order having been made at the time upon the application. The ...
The Bank of Bengal Vs. Kalka Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.422
1. The only question in this appeal is concerned with the pleader's fee. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to have a declaration of their title to certain moneys held by the Bank. The Bank was prepared to hand over the moneys to the persons entitled, whoever they might be, and only required to be satisfied that the plaintiffs were the parties so entitled. The case was taken up late on the afternoon of the 3rd of September, and on a representation by the pleader for the Bank that the Agent of the Bank was not present and that the certificate required by the rules of the Court as to the payment of fees could not be verified, the Court intimated that the certificate would be accepted afterwards. On the following day the case appeared on the list--and, after some formal matters were disposed of, was adjourned to the 17th of September. On the 10th of September, the pleader's fee was paid and a certificate filed, and the case was adjourned to the 21st of September when the arguments wer...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Bishun Dutt
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.423
1. This appeal arises out of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The property is situated in Allahabad. The Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 3,450 for it. The owner made no claim in compliance with Section 9, Clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. He, however, applied for a reference to the District Judge, claiming Rs. 12,830. He examined one witness, Mr. Acton, the Municipal Engineer, and no other. The learned District Judge awarded the sum of Rs. 6,663. The sum so awarded included the 15 per cent, for compulsory acquisition. The Secretary of State has appealed. The first ground of appeal is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 9, Clause (2) and Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, the owner can have no greater sum awarded to him than the amount awarded by the Collector or, in the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent contends that the notification of dissatisfaction with the award is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »