Allahabad Court February 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.
Debi Mangal Prasad Singh Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All234
Robson, J.1. The question to be determined in this case is whether immovable property, obtained by a Hindu widow on partition of the joint family property under the Mitakshara law, is part of her stridhan in the narrow sense of that word, indicating her separate property or peculium which passes on her death to her own heirs; or is merely part of her stridhan in the wider sense in which the word is sometimes used, as indicating any property in which she may have some right of proprietorship.2. The property in question originally belonged to one Gaya Prasad, who, with his three sons, formed a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law. He died leaving three sons and a widow, Dulhan Sahibzad Kunwari. One of his sons, Sheo Partap Singh, died in 1889, leaving a widow and his son, the plaintiff appellant. In 1894 a partition of the joint family property took place, at the suit of the plaintiff, under the guardianship of his mother, and in that suit the court apportioned one-fourth sh...
Harpal Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Mangal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.161
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been made in 1855 by three brothers, one of whom was Gehru Singh. The plaintiff purchased the share of Gehru Singh from the sixth defendant (who inherited it) on the 24th of June 1906, and by virtue of this purchase, he claims redemption of the mortgage. The Court of first instance held that what was mortgaged by the three brothers was a third share of 259 bighas and odd; that the share mortgaged by Gehru Singh was thus one-ninth, and that the extent of that share was 28 bighas and odd. It accordingly made a decree for redemption of the 28 bighas and odd and dismissed the claim as regards the rest. The finding of the Court of first instance was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Upon appeal to this Court, it was urged that the matter was res judicata in consequence of a judgment passed in a pre-emption suit brought by the defendants. This contention found favour with the learned Judge of this Court bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›