Allahabad Court July 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.
Man Singh Vs. Beni Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All4
Chamier, J.1. This was a suit by the respondent to enforce a mortgage deed executed in his favour by Mathura Prasad, and his son, Janki Prasad. The defendants to the suit were Janki Prasad, Beni Earn another son of Mathura Prasad, and Gajadhar and Raj Bahadur, sons of Janki Prasad. The principal sum secured by the deed was Rs. 2,000. The claim was for Rs. 10,094-14-3, and that amount has been decreed, In the court below it was contended by the defendants that the provisions of the deed relating to interest were unconscionable and should not be enforced. The contention was overruled and has not been repeated here. The only questions for decision are whether the, deed in suit was duly executed and registered, and whether it can be enforced against the appellants, Beni Ram, Gajadhar and Raj Bahadur.2. Of the marginal witnesses to the deed, Bhola Nath is dead and . Piari Lal has disappeared. The two remaining witnesses, Chiddu and Chiranji Lal, a brother of Mathura Prasad, did their best t...
Jiwan Ram Vs. Tondi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All13
George Knox, J.1. I would dismiss this appeal. It arises out of a suit for pre-emption based upon custom as contained in the wajib-ul-arz. The wajib-ul-arz under which the right is claimed is a wajib-ul-arz prepared under and in accordance with the provisions of Regulation VII of 1822. According to the Regulation that wajib-ul-arz is primd facie evidence of the custom recorded in it unless and until it has been formally altered. It shall be shown by the result of a full investigation in a regular suit that the proceeding or record of the Collector was erroneous or incomplete. No evidence has been given by the defendant. I have therefore, to see what is the true construction to be placed upon its language. The terms of it will be found fully set out at page 282, I.L.R., volume 32. As I read them they record a custom whereby a person holding a share in the deh of Dharera has a right of pre-emption over and above a stranger. This is what I understand the villagers of Dharera intended and ...
Muhammad Usman Vs. Muhammad Abdul Ghafur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All1
H.G. Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption based on Muhammadan law. The property consisted of a zamindari share. It is suggested, and it appears to be the case, that there has been an imperfect partition under which the vendor holds exclusive possession of a 'certain part of the zamindari. The abadi, however, remains common property of the proprietors of the mahal, and there can be no doubt that the vendor and the plaintiff are each owners of fractional shares in the mahal. The plaintiff alone produced evidence on the question of compliance with the Muhammadan law of demand. The moment that the news of a sale was received, the plaintiff demanded his shufa and invoked witnesses. He alleged in the plaint that- after this notice was given to the vendee. The court of first instance decided against the plaintiff on the ground that two separate demands were necessary and that the two demands could not be combined. The lower appellate court confirme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›