Allahabad Court February 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.
Dharajit and ors. Vs. Siria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.484
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen sued to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on foot of a mortgage of the 25th of September 1896. This mortgage was executed by four brothers including Jewa Ram, who has since died. The defendants to the suit are the executants of the bond and the representatives of Jewa Ram. It is found by the Courts below that the mortgage in question was executed to raise money to pay off prior debts of the ancestor of the executants. The Court below gave a decree to the plaintiffs as against the three surviving brothers but exempted the representatives of Jewa Ram. The learned District Judge in affirming the decision of the Courts below observe that the plaintiffs had to prove that the debt to pay off which, the mortgage was executed was incurred by the ancestor as bona fide debt for a legal necessity.' In this statement of the law we are unable to concur with the learned District Judge. All that the plaintiffs were bound to ...
Abdur Rahman and ors. Vs. Musammat Sughra Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.484a
1. Musammat Sughra Begam instituted a suit against Abdur Rahman and others. She applied for leave to use as pauper and she was declared a pauper, and her suit registered as a suit brought in forma pauperis. Then followed an order fixing the 13th of April 1909 for the settlement of issues, and directing the petitioner without delay to deposit the process fee, so that notice of this fact might be served on the defendant. This order was passed on the 20th March 1909. Up to the 13th of April, the date fixed for the settlement of issues, Musammat Sughra Begam made no effort to deposit the required process-fee. The case was then called up. It was found that no process-fee had been deposited, and the Munsif passed what was, under the circumstances, a very proper order dismissing the suit. That order was passed under Order IX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Musammat Sughra Begum appealed from this order. On the 28th of February 1910, the appeal was allowed subject to Musammat Sughra Be...
Nasirul Haq and ors. Vs. Fyaz-ul-rahman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.530
1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. They are these: One Abdullah owned, among other properties, 10 biswas of the village of Nizamuddinpur and 17 1/2 biswas of Tayabpur. His wife, Musammat Mubarakunnisa, brought a suit against him for the recovery of her dower of Rs. 10,000 and this suit was compromised and the compromise embodied in a decree of the 29 th of August 1889. The material portions of the decree run as follows: 'The defendant Abdullah gives the whole of the undermentioned properties to the plaintiffs in lieu of Rs. 10,000 dower claimed by her. Now the plaintiff is the owner of the said properties but the defendant will retain possession over 10 biswas of Nizamuddinpur for his life, the income of it will be appropriated by the defendant and in case of urgent necessity, he may hypothecate or sell his life-estate in 5 biswas out of the said 10 biswas.... On the death of the plaintiff those who may be the heirs of both the plaintiff and the defendant will be the owners ...
Radhe and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.630
ORDERGriffin, J.1. This is an application for revision of the order of the Magistrate convicting the four appellants of an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Gambling (Act III of 1867). The Magistrate found that the appellants were caught gambling on a kutcha public road just outside the limits of the Muzaffarnagar Municipality. The grounds taken in this application for revision are that as the scene of gambling was outside the limits of the Municipality, the accused ought to have been acquitted and secondly that the scene of gambling was not a public place or thoroughfare.2. With regard to the latter ground it is sufficient to say that the Magistrate found that the scene of the gambling was on a kutcha public road. The first ground finds some support in the wording of Section 13 which is as follows:A Police Officer may apprehend without warrant any person found playing for money or other valuable thing with cards, dice, counters or other instruments of gaming, used in the play...
Maksud Mahi Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.532
Woodroffe, J.1. This is an application for review of judgment in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1922 of 1908.2. It has been objected, in the first place, that I cannot, sitting as a single judge, hear this application. But Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure says:'--'When the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same.' The application which is referred to is, I think, an application for a Rule as also the hearing of the rule; and the term includes all proceedings up to the discharge or making a...
Dwarka Chand Vs. Sheikh Khadim Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.553
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment under the following circumstances. On the 14th of June 1890, Muhammad Ishaq executed a mortgage of a zemindari share together with some sir land in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. Subsequently, on the 23rd of August 1897, the same share with the sir land was usufructuarily mortgaged to Dwarka Chand, the defendant-appellant. On the 6th of January 1905, plaintiff sued upon his mortgage, making the defendant-appellant a party to the suit, and obtained a decree for sale and on the 24th of November 1905, the mortgaged property was sold and purchased by the plaintiff. He, in due course, obtained mutation of names and possession. He, however, failed to get possession of the sir land which was in the occupation of the defendant, and a suit for ejectment of the defendant, in the Revenue Court was unsuccessful. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit for ejectment of the defendant.2. The defence to the suit was that afte...
Sarju Prashad Rai and ors. Vs. Gauri Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.485
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The Court below has dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and the plaintiffs come here in appeal. The plaintiffs alleged that a custom of pre-emption prevailed in the village. The only evidence they thought fit to produce in support of this allegation of the existence of the custom was the wajib-ul-arz of 1860. Paragraph 1 of the wajib-ul-arz is as follows: 'This is a zemindari village which was purchased by us. It was settled with us, as a zemindari village consisting of one thok with specification of shares and after completion of all the particulars. Hence, after full consideration and due deliberation, we reduce to writing the following conditions, and we shall act according to the same.' Paragraph 5 refers to preemption and is as follows: Bach co-sharer is competent to transfer his own shares but at the time of transfer it shall be necessary for him to make the transfer first to a near co-sharer and on his refusal he (the transferor) ...
Mahabir Prashad and ors. Vs. Durbijai Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.482
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of the amount stated to be due to the plaintiffs on foot of six bonds. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree in respect of the six bonds. But upon appeal the lower Appellate Court disallowed the claim in respect of two bonds, namely, one of the 17th of July 1882 and the other of the 15th of June 1892. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed as regards these bonds on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The provision as regards payment of the debt secured by the first bond of 1882 is as follows: 'In all we owe Rs. 82 of the current coin on which we shall pay interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent per mensem. We shall pay this sum principal and interest, in a lump sum on Phagun Sudi 1290 from the price of sugar cane and molasses. If we fail to pay the money at the stipulated time, then we shall pay it along with the amount of the mortgage deed previously executed in favor of the said creditor. We shall pay this m...
Mukha and anr. Vs. Har Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.810
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption based upon a village custom. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that the custom was not proved. The lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit holding that the custom is proved. The plaintiff-respondent, to prove his custom, produced the wajib-ul-arz of the Settlement of 1872. He also produced a sale-deed of 18th May 1907, two decrees of 1893 and one decree of 1898. The defendants-appellants to rebut this evidence produced an old wajib-ul-arz of 1853 drawn up at a Settlement known as Mohan Singh's Settlement. The village in question, I may note, lies in the Meerut District. The wajib-ul-arz of 1872 has not been filed in extenso but only an extract setting forth that paragraph which relates to the right of pre-emption. This paragraph is headed 'dastur-i-haq-i-shafa'. It then goes on to record that a co-sharer who wishes to dispose of his share has the right to do so, but that he should offer it first of a...
Miss. N. Sturmer and anr. Vs. Chatoo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1911
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.813
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by certain zemindars against the defendant-respondent Chhatu Rai for a declaration that they are the proprietors of an area of 2 bighas, 19 biswas, 4 dhurs of land, and that the defendant is not the proprietor there of and that his name cannot be entered in the pattidari but that he is in possession thereof as a tenant holding rent-free in lieu of services. It is an admitted fact that at the recent Settlement the plaintiffs-appellants brought a suit in the Court of an Assistant Settlement Officer against the same defendant as a rent free grantee asking for the resumption of the land or in the alternative that rent should be fixed upon it. That case was decided in favour of the defendant, the Revenue Court holding, rightly or wrongly, that the defendants' rights had developed into those of a full proprietor and he was recorded by the Settlement Officer as an under proprietor. The plaintiffs have therefore brought the present suit in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »