Allahabad Court February 1911 Judgments
Musammat Nasiran Bibi Vs. Sheikh Rahim Bux and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.561
1. The petition of appeal before us is an appeal on behalf of Nasiran Bibi, defendant. The suit in which she was arrayed as defendant arises out of a case of pre-emption brought by one Sheikh Rahim Baksh, who based his claim upon the Wajib-ul-arz in force in the mahal. He claimed that he and one Talib Ali, ancestor of the defendant Muhammad Halim, were relatives and co-sharers in the mahal, and that Janki Singh, who has also been arrayed as defendant in the suit and as respondent in the appeal, was a total stranger in the mahal. He claimed a preferential right of purchase of the property in dispute. The defence was to the effect that the plaintiff Rahim Baksh had no cause of action and that the cause of action alleged in the case no longer subsisted. Talib Ali, it is contended, had sold the property in dispute to Janki Singh, who was a stranger. Nasiran Bibi, co-sharer, then sued for pre-emption. A compromise, followed by a decree, was effected; whereby Nasiran Bibi got into possession...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Shib Dei Vs. Munshi Ajudhya Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.571
ORDER1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Moradabad who had before him an application for a succession certificate presented by Musammat Shib Dei, a Hindu widow, to the estate of her deceased husband. When the Court was considering the application, objection was raised by one Ajudhya Prasad, to the effect that Musammat Shib Dei was likely to squander the property, and that she had only a life-interest in it. It was in no way an objection under Clause (3) or Clause (4) of Section 7. The learned District Judge granted the application for a succession certificate, but added that the money was to remain in deposit in a certain bank in which it then was, and that only interest should be paid to her. This is not an order provided for in Act No. VII of 1889. All that the Court can do is to require, as a condition precedent to the grant of a certificate, that the person to whom it proposes to make the grant should give a bond to the District Judge with on...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sukhdei Bibi Vs. Kidarnath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.628
1. One Sukhdei got a decree for a portion of certain buildings and the rest was given to Kidarnath. It is admitted that the buildings before partition belonged to one owner and that the decree reserved no easement of way in favour of Kidarnath.2. Sukhdei, in execution of the decree, applied for the possession of the share allotted to her. Kidarnath objected that he had the easement of way over the doorway in question. The Court below granted the easement claimed by him. Sukhdei appealed to this Court and her learned Advocate contended that the Court below, as an Executing Court, could not grant an easement which had not been awarded by the decree. We, by our order dated the 11th of July 1910, remitted the following issue to the Court below for trial: Is the doorway, over which the lower Court has granted the right of passage, the only means of egress and ingress to the defendant's property3. The findings of the Court are to the effect that a door can be opened on the north in Kidarnath...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Mohan Devi Vs. Jahangir Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.605
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, The facts are a little complicated. The defendants-respondents are sons of one Bhim Sen. Bhim Sen was an occupancy-tenant and in the year 1903 he made a lease for fifteen years in favour of the husband of the plaintiff. This lease -was clearly in the nature of a mortgage and in the Court below it was admitted to be so. The defendants-respondents appear to have been zemindars of the village in which the occupancy-holding was situate whether they were sole zemindars or not does not appear, but it does appear that a sum of Rs. 150 was paid by the husband of the plaintiff to the defendants-respondents at the time of the execution of the mortgage. This sum was paid to the defendants-respondents as the rent payable by their father Bhim Sen as occupancy-tenants to the defendants-respondents as zemindars for the whole period of fifteen years. Bhim Sen has since died and the defendants-respondents have stepped into their father's shoes as...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Sumer Singh Vs. Chaube Liladhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.624
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that a certain ancestral house which has been attached in execution of a decree against one Chaube Rikhi Lal could not be attached and sold. The plaintiffs were the son and grandson of the said Chaube Rikhi Lal. A decree has been granted against Chaube Rikhi Lal at the suit of the appellant Sumer Singh. The suit instituted by Sumer Singh was a suit on foot of a promissory-note given by Rikhi Lal under the following circumstances. Rikhi Lal had been sued for libel. He was successful in the Court of first instance. On appeal, however, a decree was given against him. He was anxious to file a second appeal to the High Court and having no money Sumer Singh's father went security for him and (sic) obtained the promissory-note. The plaintiffs raised the plea that the debt due to the father of Sumer Singh was not a debt for which a Hindu son and grandson could be held liable. The Court of first instance held that the son and g...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdip NaraIn Singh Vs. Billar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.572
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff had acquired a title by adverse possession to shares in four villages specified in the plaint, and that the defendants second party were not entitled to bring that property to sale in execution of a mortgage-decree against the defendants first party.2. The defendants, first party, were recorded in the revenue papers as owners of a 3/4ths share in the property in suit, but according to the plaintiff they never were in possession and he alone was in exclusive enjoyment of the property for over 12 years. Defendant No. 1, one of the recorded co-sharers, executed a mortgage of the property on the 12th April 1899 in favour of the defendants second party. The latter sued on this mortgage and obtained a decree for sale on the 14th of December 1905., The present suit was instituted on the 3rd July 1906.3. Prior to this, namely, on the 16th of February 1894, the plaintiff had instituted a suit praying for maintenance of pos...
Tag this Judgment!Rana Pirthi Singh Vs. Marn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.574
1. The only question in this appeal is whether or not the petition of appeal was properly presented in the Court of the District Judge. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount due on a security bond of the 17th of August 1895 in which certain property was hypothecated. It is stated in the claim that there were two earlier mortgages. One dated the 9th of August 1895 and another dated the 7th of April 1906. But in his plaint the plaintiff alleged that both these bonds were satisfied. The prayers in the plaint are (1) for a declaration that the amounts due on the two bonds, which we have mentioned above, have been satisfied and discharged in full and the value of this claim is stated to be Rs. 4,938 and (2) that an order may be passed directing the defendants to pay to plaintiff on foot of his security a sum of Rs. 4,531-3-0. There is a further alternative prayer that an order in any case may be passed directing the defendants to pay the amount due to the plaintiff on ...
Tag this Judgment!Madho Pershad Vs. Munshi Ali HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.535
Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for compensation for wrongful confinement. It is alleged that the claim is also one for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff is the Editor of a newspaper called the 'Khhichri Samachar' published at Mirzapur. The first defendant, Munshi Ali Husain, was the Deputy Magistrate of Mirzapur. The second defendant, Muhammad Mohsin, was the Kotwal or City Inspector. The third defendant was a Sub-Inspector stationed at Mirzapur. The fourth defendant was the officiating Superintendent of Police. The 5th defendant Jamna Das is a Jain resident of that town.2. It appears that the Jains wanted to have a procession at Mirzapur and with that object applied to the District Magistrate for permission to carry the procession through the streets. Inquiries were made, with the result that the Magistrate permitted the procession to pass through the city under certain conditions. After this order was issued some of th...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Prashad Tewari and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.552
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The lower Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the right of pre-emption recorded in the Wajib-ul-arz of the village was a right existing by contract and not by custom. The case appears to us to resemble closely the case of Returaji Dubain v. Pahalwan Bhagat 7 Ind. Cas. 680 : 7 A.L.J. 1040 (F.B.). The village in dispute is in the Gorakhpur District as was the village in that case The Wajib-ul-arz of 1833 gives the names of the co-sharers in the village and describes them as 'birt-holders' and co-sharers. There is also a recital that the village in question is the ancestral birt property of the co-sharers and that they had agreed to pay the Government revenue assessed on it. The provision as to pre-emption runs as follows: If any of us wishes to transfer the whole or a portion of his share, he shall inform his co-sharers in the village, and shall sell or mortgage it to them at a fixed price. If any one transfers his share to a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheoalambh Singh and ors. Vs. Bodhai Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.857
Griffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the learned District Judge of Benares dismissing the applicants' appeal. The facts as set out in the judgment of Court below are as follows:The suit was called on 10 minutes ago. It is now 1-20 P.M. Pandit Uma Kant Pande, one of the Pleaders for the appellants, who was then in Court informed me that he had a sore throat. As he had two colleagues engaged with him, I told him that one of them would have to argue the appeal if he could not, or I would dismiss it. He went off then and has not returned, nor has any of his other colleagues put in an appearance I have waited more than a sufficient time and decline to wait any longer. The appeal is dismissed for default with costs.2. It is clear from the above facts that the Court below would have exercised a wise discretion if he had waited some time longer before taking up the case. On behalf of the plaintiffs, opposite parties, it is contended that no application in revision ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »