Allahabad Court November 1912 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.
Mahabir Pershad and anr. Vs. Ram Lochan Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.521
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The village is now divided into five mahals. A certain individual, proprietor in one mahal, made an exchange with the proprietors in another mahal of certain plots of land. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in a third mahal, that is to say, in the events which have happened he is neither a co-sharer with the transferor nor with the transferee. The plaintiff adduced in support of his case the zamima khewat of 1233 Fasli. This document provides as follows: 'When any sharer wishes to transfer his rights, he can transfer first to a near relative (rishtadar karibi), after him to a distant relative (rishtadar baidi), and after him to sharers in the village (shurkain deh). In the event of those persons refusing, the transferor shall have power to sell or mortgage to whom he pleases.' Then follow these words: Sharers (hissadaran) and sharers in the village (shurkain deh) shall be considered to have preference on condition that they are willing to...
Jagan Nath and anr. Vs. Ajudhia Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All14
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of certain immovable property, treating the defendant as a trespasser. The facts, so far as I consider them material, are as follows. Prior to the institution of the present suit the plaintiffs brought a suit in the revenue court seeking to eject the defendant as their sub-tenant. They claimed that they were the occupancy tenants and that the defendant was their sub-tenant. The plea put in by the defendant was that he was not a sub-tenant but the occupancy tenant of the holding. The Assistant Collector was of opinion that the defendant was, as he alleged, the occupancy tenant. In other words he held that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiffs and the defendant. As a result of this finding the suit for ejectment in the revenue court necessarily failed. There was an appeal to the Commissioner who held for other reasons that the...
Masih-ud-dIn Vs. Ballabh Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All68
Harry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a claim under an indemnity bond executed in favour of one Abdullah by Kishan Chand and Gokul Chand on the 12th of November, 1889. On that date Kishan Chand and Gokul Chand executed a sale deed of a village named Lasra, in favour of Abdullah. The latter apparently had some doubts as to the validity of his vendors' title, for, on the same date, he took from his vendors an indemnity bond the conditions of which have given rise to the present suit. By this indemnity bond the vendors undertook to make good to Abdullah the sale price together with any loss he might sustain on account of any defect of title in the property conveyed by the sale deed. Apparently, Abdullah entered into possession of the property sold and remained in possession until the 27th of May, 1897, when he made a dedication of this village along with others for certain religious purposes. Under the waqfnamah he appointed himself the first mutawalli and nomina...
Sheikh Nasir-ud-dIn Vs. Ballabh Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.471
Henry Griffin, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a claim under an indemnity bond, executed in favour of one Abdullah by Kishun Chand and Gokul Chand on the 12th of November 1889. On that date, Kishen Chand and Gokul Chand executed a sale-deed of a village named Lasra in favour of Abdullah. The latter apparently had some doubts as to the validity of his vendors' title, for on the same date he took from his vendors an indemnity bond, the conditions of which have given rise to the present suit. By this indemnity bond the vendors undertook to make good to Abdullah the sale price together with any loss he might sustain on account of any defect of title in the property conveyed by the sale-deed. Apparently, Abdullah entered into possession of the property sold and remained in possession until the 27th of May 1897, when he made a dedication of this village along with others for certain religious purposes. Under the waqfnamah, he appointed himself the first mutwalli and nominate...
Gulla Mal and anr. Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.732
Benerji, J.1. This suit is in substance one for specific performance of a contract embodied in a document executed on the 25th of January 1910. The parties owned certain house property jointly. Under an award made in 1861, a portion of this property was partitioned, bat some of it still remained joint. It is said that under the contract in question, it was agreed that the property which had remained joint should be divided in the manner provided for in the document. On the basis of this agreement, the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen and claimed the reliefs set forth in the plaint. The facts of the case are fully stated in the judgment of the Munsif. He dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement of the 25th of January 1910 was entered into by the defendant without a full knowledge of its contents and that it was not binding on him. He also came to the conclusion that the contract made in that document gave the plaintiffs an unfair advantage and t...
Khalil-ud-dIn Ahmad Vs. Banni Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All34
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 11th of July, 1893. Various defences were pleaded, and amongst other things execution and consideration were denied. The court below has found nearly all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It has found that the bond was duly executed by Musammat Banni Bibi, the mortgagor, and that the consideration was duly paid to her. The court, however, somewhat reluctantly found that the bond had not been duly registered. This question of registration was the question which came before a Bench of this Court. It appears that on the day on which the mortgage purports to have been registered, the husband of Musammat Banni Bibi made an application to the sub-registrar of Bareilly tahsil. The actual application is not before us but there is endorsed on the bond the following note:This document was presented by Muiz-ud-din Ahmad on Wednesday, the 12th July, 1893, between 8 and 9 a. m., in the office ...
Khalil-ud-dIn Ahmed Vs. Musammat Banni Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.274
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage dated the 11th of July 1893. Various defences were pleaded, and, amongst other things execution and consideration were denied. The Court below has found nearly all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It has found that the bond was duly executed by Musammat Banni Bibi, the mortgagor, and that the consideration was duly paid to her. The Court, however, somewhat reluctantly found that the bond had not been duly registered. This question of registration was the question which came before a Bench of this Court. It appears that on the day on which the mortgage purported to have been registered, the husband of Musammat Banni Bibi made an application to the Sub-Registrar of Bareilly Tahsil. The actual application is not before us but there is endorsed on the bond the following note: 'This document was presented by Muiz-ud-din Ahmad on Wednesday, the 12th July 1893, between 8 and 9 A.M. in the office of the...
Birj Lal Vs. Bua Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.292
ORDERRafique, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, restoring the appeal of the opposite party which had been struck off for default. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the order of the lower Court restoring the appeal is bad inasmuch as no notice was sent to or served upon the applicant to show cause why the appeal of the opposite party should not be restored. It is further contended that the affidavit filed by the opposite party in the lower Court explaining his absence on the day of hearing of the appeal is insufficient and does not excuse his absence. The order of the lower Court was passed under Rule 19, Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule does not require any notice to be issued to the respondents prior to making an order of restoration of an appeal, struck off for default. But, it is said for the applicant that under Section 1...
Har NaraIn Vs. Umrai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.661
Henry Griffin, J.1. A suit was dismissed under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application under Order IX, Rule 9, to have the order of dismissal set aside was also dismissed. The plaintiff again applied under Order XLVII, Rule 1, for review of judgment, The Court of first instance allowed that application and setting aside its former orders directed that the suit be restored to its original number. The defendant appealed and the learned District Judge has reversed the order of the Court of first instance and directed that the application for review be dismissed. The plaintiff comes here in revision, and it is contended on his behalf that the Court below had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Court of first instance except on the grounds set out in Order XLVII, Rule 7. That rule provides that an order rejecting an application for review of judgment shall not be appealable, but an order granting review shall be appealed against on grounds ...
Jagar Nath and anr. Vs. Ajudhya Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.376
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of certain immoveable property, treating the defendant as a trespasser. The facts, so far as I consider them material, are as follows: Prior to the institution of the present suit, the plaintiffs brought a suit in the Revenue Court seeking to eject the defendant as their sub-tenant. They claimed that they were the occupancy-tenants and that the defendant was their subtenant. The plea put in by the defendant was that he was not a sub-tenant but the occupancy-tenant of the holding. The Assistant Collector was of opinion that the defendant was, as he alleged, the occupancy-tenant. In other words, he held that the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiffs and the defendant. As a result of this finding, the suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court necessarily failed. There was an appeal to the Commissioner, who held for other reasons that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »