Allahabad Court April 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.
Ram Belas and ors. Vs. Brij NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.743
1. The finding of the lower Court on the issue remitted is that Musammat Jaini died on the 31st October 1897.2. The present suit for redemption of the mortgage was brought on 17th November 1909, i.e., more than 12 years after the death of Musammat Jaini. It is, however, pointed out that the Civil Courts were closed on 31st October 1900 for the annual vacation and only reopened on 17th November 1909.3. As we have pointed out, the suit as framed at present is bound to fail. The plaintiffs claim to treat the sale of 29th July 1879 by the widow as a nullity and to have the right to redeem the original mortgage. But, as found by the lower Court, that sale was for legal necessity at least to the extent of Rs. 3,977-11 out of Rs. 5,500. It is clear, therefore, that the plaintiffs cannot treat that sale as a nullity. The widow had full power to pay off the debts of her husband and to sell property for that purpose. The plaintiffs, therefore, ought to have sued not for redemption of the mortgag...
Babu Lal Vs. Bhawani Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.32
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case say that they are mortgagees in possession of one half of a certain bazar and entitled as such to receive rents from the shop-keepers occupying shops and houses in one half of the same. They say that they leased out their right to receive these rents to the defendant, Babu Lal and they have sued him for arrears of lease money before the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra. The question is, whether that Court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit. No written contract of lease was produced between the plaintiffs and Babu Lal, and I can only look at the evidence which has been believed by the Court below in order to ascertain the terms of that contract. What the plaintiff Bhawani Das says is,--I orally leased the rent of the said one half of the bazar to Babu Lal, defendant, at a rent of Rs. 24 per mensem about three or three-and-half years ago, and the water rate was to be paid by Babu Lal and he was also responsible for repairing the sh...
Murat Pande Vs. Kesho Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.27
Piggott, J.1. In this case, the plaintiffs as proprietors of a certain village sued the defendant as tenant of a certain grove therein situated for the cash equivalent of one-half of the produce of the fruit-bearing trees in the said grove as being the rent due to them on account of the two years in suit. The suit was filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the second class. He framed three issues. The first of these raised the question whether the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the whole rent supposing it to be due, and it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The third issue related to the appraisement of the produce during the years in suit and was never decided at all. The second issue ran as follows: Is the grove in suit in possession of the defendant as a rent free grant?' It is clear, therefore, that it was common ground between the parties in the first Court that the suit had been rightly instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector and that the defendant hel...
Bohra Jeth Mal Vs. Dharam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.745
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage of the 22nd of August 188 3, executed by two brothers, Hukam Singh and Het Singh. The property comprised in the mortgage consisted of shares in four villages, one of which was Nagla Behari, which was ancestral property. The mortgagors are dead and the defendants are their legal representatives. It was urged on their behalf that the mortgage was not made for family necessity and that, therefore, the share in Nagla Behari which is ancestral property is not liable under the mortgage. The lower Court has accepted this defence and has exempted the village from the operation of the mortgage. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The only question which we have to determine in it is whether there was justifying necessity for the mortgage in question. It appears from the mortgage-deed that Het Singh and Hukam Singh purchased certain property from two brothers, Rup Singh and Baldeo, for Rs. 3,600 that they paid a part of the con...
Balli and anr. Vs. Naubat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.120
ORDERGeorge Knox, J.1. Sufficient time has not run to allow of the trespass to have matured into prescription. The last decree passed in the suit between the parties was on the 17th December 1900, and the present suit was instituted on the 29th September 1910.2. The pleas 3 and 4 taken in appeal fail.3. The question does arise whether Section 34 authorizes or is sufficient to provide for the ejectment of a trespasser. Section 34 says that a person occupying land, without the consent of the landholder, shall be liable for the rent of that land at the rate payable in the previous year. Prima facie, if he is liable for rent, it would seem that he is liable to the consequences which follow when rent is not paid and also to such consequences as would enure is the case of non-occupancy tenants holding on under similar circumstances. On comparing the language used in Section 4, Clause 5, where tenant is described as a parson by whom rent is, or bat for a contract, express or implied, would be...
Maharaja Vizianagram Vs. Alam Shah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.126
Piggott, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal in an execution case, the matter in issue being the amount which has been awarded to the decree holder as mesne profits. There is a plea in the memorandum of appeal regarding the extent of the area in respect of which mesne profits have been calculated. This has not been pressed and seems to be precluded by the findings of fact of the Courts below. There remains the question of the principle on which mesne profits have been calculated. The Courts below have assessed the damages on the value of the Crops less a reasonable allowance for expenses of cultivation. It is admitted that the determining factor in a question of this sort is ordinarily the nature of the plaintiff's possession before he was dispossessed, or the unlawful possession of the defendant began. The use which the defendant while in possession as a trespasser actually made of the land is not a determining factor in the case. The question is what would the plaintiff have made...
Rokaiya Begam Vs. Ahmadi Khanam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.109
Chamier, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for pre-emption of house property The first Court decreed the claim, saying that although both the plaintiff and the vendee were sharers in the appendages (Shafi-i-khalit), the plaintiff, being a Sunni was entitled to pre-empt the property as the vendee was a Shia and the Shia law does not give a right of pre-emption in such a case The lower Appellate Court held that as the vendee was like the plaintiff a sharer in the appendages, she was entitled to retain the property as against the plaintiff. In second appeal, it is contended that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree, because the Shia law does not recognize Shafi-i-ltkalit in such a case. It is also contended that both the grounds on which the lower Appellate Court has held that the vendee is a Shafi-i-khalit are untenable. In support of the first contention, I was referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jog Deb Singh v. Muhammad Afzal 32 C. 982 : 9 C.W.N. 326 but th...
Muhammad Shafi Khan Vs. Lali Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All478
Henry Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.1. The facts of the case and the questions of law which arise in it are fully dealt with in his judgment by our learned brother. In our opinion the conclusion at which he arrived is supported by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Nawab Umjad Ally Khan v. Mussumat Mohumdee Begum (1867) 11 Moo. I.A. 517. That was no doubt a case between Shias, but the rule of law was considered as applying equally to Shias and Sunnis. This has been shown by Mr. Ameer Ali on page 86 of Vol. I of his well-known work on Muhammadan law. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Dewan Bahadur Seth Ballab Das Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.578
Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 160 of the Tenancy Act to recover arrears of revenue paid by one co-sharer on behalf of a defaulting co-sharer. The facts are briefly as follows: The defendants Nos. 4and5 were the owners of certain shares. These shares were attached and sold on the 23rd of March 1905, i.e., in 1312 Fasli, in execution of a decree. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the property at auction sale. The defendants Nos. 4 and 5 then filed objections to the sale and asked that it might be set aside. On the date fixed for hearing, they did not appear and an ex parte order was passed confirming the sale. But they again came to Court and asked to have the ex parte order set aside on the ground that they had good cause for their non-appearance. The Court allowed this application, set aside the ex parte order, and re-entertained the objections. These objections were finally decided on the 15th of April 1908 when they were disallowed. In the ye...
Mata Bhikh Singh and anr. Vs. Gaya Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.580
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession and damages, which has been decreed by both the Courts below. The parties are co-sharers in a certain mahal; lands appertaining to the said mahal are actually held in severalty as sir or khudkasht by all the co-sharers, including the defendants-appellants. The lands now in suit have been held in severalty by the plaintiffs-respondents at least from 1304 Fasli. The defendants-appellants interfered with the separate possession of the plaintiffs sometime in 1316 Fasli and in consequence of an adverse decision of the Criminal Court in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plaintiffs had to admit their dispossession. I hold that as between co-sharers in a mahal in which lands are held in severalty by different co sharers, the Courts will protect each co-sharer, or group of co-sharers, in the peaceable enjoyment of such lands as they may actually be holding in severalty as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »