Allahabad Court December 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.
Balmakund Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.778
ORDER1. This is an application in revision. The facts are undisputed and very simple. One Mr. Gotting sent a money order for Rs. 34 to the applicant Balmakund. Gotting intended that the Rs. 34 should go in part-payment of a certain debt due on a bond. The money was received on the 14th of September 1910, by Balmakund, who in the usual way signed a receipt in duplicate and delivered the same to the Post, Office official. One receipt is in the following form:AcknowledgmentThis is a duplicate receipt which will be returned by the Post Office to the remitter.I acknowledge to have received payment of money order No. 3&3S for the sum specified on the reverse.Date 1910.Signature (in ink) of payee, or thumb impression of payee if illiterate.2. The reverse aids is in the following form:On Postal Service,Amount of: order (in figures) Rs. 34,Name of remitter M.A.W. Gotting,Address, Locomotive Department,Stamp of the) |} Mekamoh, Patna.office of issue.) |3. The other receipt is in the following fo...
Fakhran Bibi Vs. Nageshar Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.954
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a right of preemption. The vendor is one Badi-ullah. The plaintiff is Musammat Fakhran Bibi, wife of Mir Siasat Ali. Badi-ullah's share and the plaintiff's share lie in the same patti. The defendant-vendee, Nageshar Ram, is a co-sharer in several other pattis and also owns a share in the common land of the village. The Wajib-ul-arz gives a prior right of purchase to a near relation (rishtadar karibi) who owns a share in the some patti. The second right of purchase goes to a distant relative, who is also a co-sharer either in the patti or in the mahal. The third right of purchase belongs to a co-sharer in the mahal. The plaintiff's case was that she was a distant relative and a co-sharer in the same patti, and, therefore, had a preferential right of purchase over the defendant-vendee, who is a Hindu and only a co sharer in the mahal. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is not a 'rishtadar baid' within the m...
Chhittar Kunwar Vs. Gaura Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All189
Richards, C.J., and Banerji, J.1. The appellant, who is one of the two widows of one Madan Mohan Lal, brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen against the other widow of the aforesaid deceased, for a declaration that the defendant, being childless, was only entitled to maintenance and had no right to have the zamindari villages belonging to her deceased husband, partitioned between the two widows. It appears that Madan Mohan Lal died sometime in the year 1909, leaving two widows, who are the parties to this suit. The plaintiff has a daughter, but the defendant has no issue. The names of both the widows, were entered in the revenue records. The defendant applied to the Revenue Court for partition of a half share. The plaintiff objected and was referred to the Civil Court. Thereupon she instituted the present suit. She put forward her claim on two grounds ; first, that under a custom prevailing among kurmis, to which caste the parties belong, a childless widow only receives m...
Chittar Kuar Vs. Goura Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.320
1. The appellant who is one of the two widows of one Madan Mohan Lal, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, against the other widow of the aforesaid deceased for a declaration that the defendant being childless was only entitled to maintenance and had no right to have the zemindari villages belonging to her deceased husband partitioned between the two widows. It appears that Madan Mohan Lal died some time in the year 1909, leaving two widows who are the parties to this suit. The plaintiff has a daughter but the defendant has no issue. The names of both the widows were entered in the Revenue Records. The defendant applied to the Revenue Court for partition of a half share. The plaintiff objected and was referred to the Civil Court. Thereupon she instituted the present suit. She put forward her claim on two grounds; -first, that under a custom prevailing among Kurmis, to which caste the parties belong, a childless widow only receives maintenance and has no right to the e...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Pandit Har Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.634
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment brought by the plaintiff, a grove-holder, against the defendant. It is to be noted in the commencement that neither party claims to be the zemindar of the soil. The bone of contention between the parties is a plot of land belonging to the zemindar which is planted with trees, in other words, it is a tenant's grove. In 1906 the plaintiff brought a suit in the Revenue Court to eject the defendant claiming the latter to be his sub-tenant, The first Court decreed the suit in his favour. The defendant appealed to the Commissioner. The latter dismissed the suit holding that it was one which ought to have been brought in the Civil Court. However, in 1908, the plaintiff brought a suit for rent against the defendant in the Revenue Court. In that suit the defendant raised the following pleas: first, that he cultivated the land without any rent having been legally fixed; secondly, that the plaintiff had formerly brought a suit for rent b...
Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Turab-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1911
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.505
1. In February 1866, one Maujud Ali Shah executed a document whereby, after reciting that a large sum of monfy was due to his wife on account of dower, he undertook to pay her Rs. 12 per mensem during her life, and agreed that she should receive that amount out of the income of certain immoveable property. In 1870, he mortgaged that and other immoveable property to Lachhman Singh and Madho Singh for Rs. 22,700, by a deed which (a sum?) provided that the mortgagees should pay annually out of the profits of the property for the illumination of the dargah of which he was sajjadahnashin, and that of this sum, Rs. 12 a mouth should be paid to his wife, Abadi Begum, and the remaining Rs. 13 a month were to be paid to him. In August 1874, the mortgagees sub-mortgaged their rights to Asa Ram, the father of the defendant to the present suit.2. The original mortgagees and after them Asa Ram continued to pay the money to Abadi Begum and Maujud Ali Sbah and their heirs until 18s8 or 1899, when Asa...
Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Turab-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All246
Karamat Husain and Chamier, JJ.1. In February, 1866, one Maujud Ali Shah executed a document whereby, after reciting that a large sum of money was due to his wife on account of dower, he undertook to pay her Rs. 12 per mensem during her life, and agreed that she should receive that amount out of the income of certain immovable property. In 1870, he mortgaged that and other immovable property to Lachman Singh and Madho Singh for Rs. 22,700, by a deed which provided that the mortgagees should pay annually out of the profits of the property for the illumination of the dargah of which he was sajjada-nashin, and that, of this sum, Rs. 12 a month should be paid to his wife, Abadi Begam, and the remaining Rs. 13 a month were to be paid to him. In August, 1874, the mortgagees sub-mortgaged their rights to Asa Ram, the father of the defendant to the present suit. The original mortgagees and after them Asa Ram continued to pay the money to Abadi Begam and Maujud Ali Shah and their heirs until 18...
Dirg Bijai Singh Vs. Bhan Partab Shah Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.945
Chamier, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a mortgage made by three members of a joint Hindu family in favour of the first respondent was binding upon the appellant who was also a member of the family. The appellant died since the appeal was filed and is now represented by four of his sons. His eldest son, Nand Kishore, is the second respondent and is one of the three who signed the mortgage.2. The following table shows all the members of the family:Nadir Shah.|-------------------------------------------------------| | | |Sudhisht Drigbijai Surat Singh AjrallNarain. Singh. Singh.| | |-------------- | || | | |Jai Karan. Bishnath. | || || |------------------------------------------- || | | | | |Nand Subh Mankaran. Rabhika Raj |Kishore. Karan. Dat. Partap. |||-----------------||-----------|-------------| | |Jaskran. Another. Another.3. One Dalthaman Singh transferred all his property by deed of gift to Jaikaran, Surat Singh, Bishnath and Nand Kishore. It has been fo...
Sri Maharaja Parbhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Lalji Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.187
Karamat Husain, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah against four persons. The operative part of the decree may be rendered as follows: 'It is decreed and ordered that the plaintiff's claim against defendant No. 3 be decreed ex parte, and against defendant No. 2 on his admission of the claim, and against defendants Nos. 1 and 4 according to a compromise.' The decree goes on further to direct that if the decretal money be not recovered from the defendants Nos. 1--3, then it should be recovered from the property mortgaged by the fourth defendant as a surety. The decree was transferred to Benares. It was passed on the 26th of May 1S97 and the application for execution of it was made on the 5th of January 1910. Lalji, one of the respondents in this Court, objected that the decree was barred under the provisions of Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge, who in his judgment said: ...
Musammat Kashmire Vs. Ramsaran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.416
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for arrears of rent due upon a lease granted in November 1903 to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the father of respondent No. 1, by one Fakir Chand whom the appellant claims to represent. The main question in the case is whether1 the lease is still in force as between the parties to this appeal.2. On October 27th, 1903, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Baldeo Sarai, father of respondent No. 1, made an usufructuary mortgage of their shares in two villages Sirsawa and Pipal Khera in favour of Fakir Chand who on November 12t,h in that year gave the mortgagors a lease of the property. Fakir Chand died in January 1905. He seems to have been only manager of the property on behalf of other persons and on his death a dispute arose as to who should be regarded as mortgagor of the property. The appellant claimed to be regarded as sole mortgagor but she was opposed by the sixth respondent Sri Kishen Lal who claimed a one-fourth share in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »