Allahabad Court July 1911 Judgments
Muhammad Nazir Khan Vs. Makhdum Bakhsh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All53
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption under the Muhammadan law. The court of first instance dismissed the claim. The lower appellate court decreed the claim reversing the court of first instance, and a learned Judge of this Court reversed the lower appellate court and restored the decree of the court of first instance.2. The question is whether the preliminaries required by the Muhammadan law have or have not been performed. The evidence is that the plaintiff pre-emptor immediately upon learning that the sale had taken place said 'mera haq shafa hai.' This he repeated three times calling upon certain persons who were present to bear witness. On the moment without any delay he took the price of the house and brought it to the vendee and claimed the house, informing him of the fact that he had already made his demand. So far as the question is a question of fact it rested with the lower appellate court to decide that question, and it was n...
Tag this Judgment!Salig Ram and anr. Vs. Chaha Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-29-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All49
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. The plaintiffs appellants are residents of Hathras in the Aligarh district where they deal in grain. The defendant is a commission agent doing business at Karachi. The former brought the present suit in the court of the Munsif at Hathras (it was subsequently transferred to the court of the Additional Munsif of Aligarh; on the following allegation of fact:--In the end of December, 1910, grain being very dear at Hathras, they inquired by telegram from the defendant the price at which juar was selling at Karachi. The defendant wired the rate on the 27th of December, 1910. On the 30th, December, 1910, they wired to him an order to purchase two waggon loads of juar at once and to despatch the same by rail to Hathras, They wired to him on the same day Rs. 600, and also sent him a hundi for Rs. 600. On the same date the defendant wired to say that he had purchased 500 maunds of juar. On the 2nd of January. 1911, the defendant wired to say that the goods had been des...
Tag this Judgment!Khub Chand Vs. Harmukh Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All41
Banerji and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal, and the only point for determination is whether the lower appellate, court was justified in dismissing the appeal presented before it by the same defendant on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The decision of the first court in the case was dated the 30th of September, 1909. This defendant applied for a copy of the judgment and decree on the 13th of October, 1909. On that same date the courts below closed for the annual vacation, and did not re-open until the 17th of November, 1909. It appears that under the special orders of the District Judge the copying department continued working during the earlier days of the vacation, presumably in order to make up arrears. Under these circumstances a notice to the effect that the copy required by the defendant, Khub Chand, was ready, was posted on the notice-board of the court on the 18th of October, 1909. The copy was actually received by Khub Chand on the 29th of November, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Rangam Lal and anr. Vs. Jhandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All32
Richards, C.J., and Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a zamiudar against a tenant for rent. The rent claimed was the sum of Rs. 294-7-0. The defence was that the claim had been discharged. The Assistant Collector, who tried the case in the first instance, found that the defendant was entitled to certain credits, but that there was a balance due of Rs. 96-11-11, for which he gave a decree. The plaintiff appealed against the decree in so far as it dismissed any part of his claim. The defendant submitted to the decree. He neither filed a cross appeal nor objections, as, provided by Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On appeal the learned District Judge referred certain issues. It would rather appear that he was influenced by certain matters which either were not before the court of first instance or were not urged in that court. These issues in substance involved a retrial by the court of first instance of the very issues which that cou...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Sharif and anr. Vs. Bande Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All36
H.G. Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to redeem two mortgages. It was necessary in order that they should succeed in their suit that they should establish that they were the heirs of one Madad Ali. -- They proved that they were the heirs of Dildar Ali, and Dildar Ali would have been one of the heirs of Madad Ali provided that he had survived him. The defence was that Dildar Ali predeceased Madad Ali. The court below finds that Dildar Ali died seven or eight years ago. The plaintiffs gave evidence which went to show that Madad Ali had not been heard of for some seventeen or eighteen years by persons who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive. Beyond this they were able to give no affirmative evidence that Madad Ali was dead. Upon these facts the plaintiffs'claim that they are entitled to succeed. They rely upon the provisions of Section 108 of the Evidence Act, which is as follows:Provided that when the question is whether ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldip Dube Vs. Mahaul Dubb and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All43
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. The parties to this suit are members of one and the same family. On the 9bh of January, 1904, they executed an agreement by which they, submitted various differences which had arisen between them to the arbitration of one Phullu Dube and on the 12th of January, 1904, the arbitrator delivered an award which was signed by the parties in token of their acceptance. This award contained a number of provisions regarding the family property and the debts due on the same ; but we are now concerned only with one provision, according to which the defendants (strictly speaking Dudhnath, father of the first three defendants and grand-father of the fourth) was bound to pay Rs. 350 to the plaintiffs by the 27th of June, 1904. In default of such payment it was provided by the award that the plaintiffs should be entitled to recover this amount with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The suit is one for recovery of this amount with interest, as well as for other moneys alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Singh and anr. Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All72
George Knox and Piggott, JJ.1. In this case a conditional decree for sale under the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of 1882) was passed in favour of one Bhagwan Das and his sister-in-law Musammat Kaunsilla jointly ; the time fixed for payment under the said decree expired on the 30th of October, 1906. Bhagwan Das died before any order absolute for sale was passed. On the 30th of April, 1909, Banwari Lal and another, sons of Bhagwan Das, presented the application out of which the present appeal has arisen. They ask for 'a decree absolute under Section 89 of Act No. IV of 1882,' after issue of notice both to the judgement-debtors and to the joint decree-holder, Musammat Kaunsilla. With reference to the latter they state that she had declined to join in the application, and they accordingly pray the Court to pass such orders as it may deem necessary for protecting her interests, in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 15, of the Code of Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullah Khan and anr. Vs. Musammat Bundi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-14-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All22
George Knox and Piggott JJ.1. This was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs appellants be declared proprietors of a certain share in mauza Taprana or in the alternative be awarded possession of the same. It appears that one Nasib Khan died some-'where about the year 1890, possessed of a share in the village in question. He left surviving a widow, Musammat Bundi, and two sons, who are the plaintiffs appellants now before us. According to the Muhammadan law, Musammat Bundi would inherit a one-eighth share in the landed property left by Nasib Khan, and the sons would take the remainder in equal shares. The appellants were minors at the time of their father's death, and during their minority Musammat Bundi not only got herself recorded as proprietor of a one-third share but proceeded in 1892 to mortgage the same to one Nihal. The latter sold his rights to one Rura Mal, who is a respondent in this case. He brought a suit on the mortgage and having obtained a decree, brought this one...
Tag this Judgment!MohsIn Ali Vs. Masum Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-13-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All20
George Knox and Piggott, JJ.1. This is a second appeal in an execution case arising out of a decree passed on the 8th of June, 1891. The question to be decided is whether the application for execu-out of which this appeal arises is or is not barred by the provisions of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We find that in the year 1906 there was an application for execution by arrest of the judgment-debtor, in connection with which the dispute between the parties was carried up to this Court in second appeal. The finding of the Additional Subordinate Judge in his judgment, dated the 6th June, 1907, which was affirmed by this Court on appeal, was to the effect that that application was not barred by the provisions of Section 48 aforesaid, because the Judgment-debtor had by fraud prevented execution of the decree at various times within twelve years immediately before the date of the application then in question. Those dates are set forth in the Judgment itself, and the last date th...
Tag this Judgment!Chunni Lal and anr. Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All8
Knox and Kabamat Husain, JJ.1. Karamat Husain, J., by his order, dated the 8th of March, 1911, referred this appeal to a Bench of two Judges. The facts are these:--The owner of the property in dispute died about 1893. His widow, Maghi, took possession of the property, and adopted Chunni Lal to her husband in 1900. After her death in that year, Chunni Lal on the 10th of December, 1900, applied for mutation of names in his favour, and Narain, father of the plaintiff, objected. His objection was disallowed and the name of Chunni Lal was entered in April, 1901.2. Chunni Lal, on the 25th of June, 1907, sold a portion of the property to Mata Din. The plaintiff, on the 25th of June, 1908,. brought an action against Mata Din and Chunni Lal. He sought three reliefs, (1) a declaration that the adoption of Chunni Lal was invalid, (2) recovery of possession of the property, and (3) in the alternative possession by right of pre-emption. The court of first instance dismissed the suit for declaration...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »