Allahabad Court May 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.
Musammat Taufiqunnissa Vs. Musammat TaskIn Banu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.239
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for possession of a plot of land No. 817/2 and 20 trees' standing on the plot. The first Court gave the respondent a decree for possession of the land but dismissed her claim to the trees. On appeal her claim to the trees also was allowed by the District Judge.2. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. It will be sufficient to give a short summary of them here. Ahmad Hossein and Nuruddin owned land including No. 817, on which Ahmad Hossein planted a grove. Ahmad Hossein was succeeded by his daughter Tausif-unnissa who in January 1895 sold part of her zemindari to Wahiduddin husband, of the respondent. The sale-deed stated expressly that groves were included. In September 1898, as partition was effect-ed between Tausifunnissa and Wahiduddin by which No. 817 was allotted to the latter and Fakhruddin a son of Nuruddin already mentioned. In December 1899, Tausif-unnissa transferred her property i...
Madan Lal Vs. Chuttan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.297
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover possession of certain zemindari property. The property originally belonged to one Chandan Singh, who died on the 22nd of February 1866. He left him surviving a widow, named, Musammat Jasodha Kunwar, and throe sons of a daughter, named, Gulab Kunwar. There was also a lady named Mohun Kunwar. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are her sons. The third plaintiff is a transferee from these sons, evidently a person who has taken a transfer and is financing the litigation. Mohun Kunwar, it is alleged by the plaintiffs, was also a daughter of Chandan Singh but this is challenged by the appellants who say she was illegitimate. Gulab Kunwar pre-deceased Jasodha Kunwar, and Jasodha remained in possession of the property as the widow of Chandan Singh up to her death which took place on the 16th of February 1872. After the death of Jasodha, the property apparently was taken possession of by the collateral heirs of Chandan Singh. A suit was instituted by J...
Hori Lal and anr. Vs. Nimman Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.126
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage. The mortgage was dated the 14th of November 1870. The mortgagee was one Dharam Singh, husband of the plaintiff, and the mortgagor was one Naiti Singh. Tilok Ram purchased the mortgaged property on the 7th of January 1889 and the defendants Hori Lal Nath are the sons of Tilok Ram who is now dead. They pleaded amongst other things that their four sons constituting with themselves a joint Hindu family were not made parties to the suit. This is the plea with which we are concerned in the present appeal, Having regard to the respective dates of the mortgage and of the institution of the suit, the non-joinder of parties, if such there was, could not be cured by making the sons of Hori Lal and Jagan Nath parties, because the suit at the time their absence was pleaded was barred by limitation. Order XXXIV, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides as follows:Subject to the provisions of this Code, al...
Madan Lal Vs. Kishen Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.138
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to realise the amount of a mortgage, dated the 11th August 1884. It was pleaded by way of defence amongst other things that the plaintiff and his minor son Bisheshar Dayal were a joint Hindu family and that the suit could not be maintained because the mortgage was of family property and the son was not made a party. Plaintiff urged against this plea that he was manager and represented the family. Plaintiff also asked that the plaint might be amended by stating therein that he sued as manager. The Court below refused to amend the plaint and dismissed the suit on the ground that the son was a necessary party to the suit.2. The appeal has been referred to this Bench because of the conflict of judicial decisions on the question.3. Apart from authority, I can see no reason why the son should be a necessary party to the suit. It must be assumed for the purpose of this appeal that the plaintiff is the manager of the family. If before the...
Muhammad YasIn Vs. Ilahi Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All545; 16Ind.Cas.455
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed to recover possession of a grove. The court of first instance and the lower appellate court decreed the plaintiff's claim. On second appeal to this Court the decrees of the courts below were reversed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed. The facts are very simple and undisputed. The grove was planted by one Thakur Dayal with the consent of the zamindars. The plaintiff, who is also a zamindar, purchased it from Jagaoli Lal, the representative of Thakur Dayal, on the 20th of December, 1900. He has been ousted from possession by the other zamindars, who have been put into possession evidently under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The wajib-ul-arz deals very fully with the rights of persons to plant groves. It is notorious that in some places it is considered by the zamindars themselves very desirable to encourage the planting of groves. The wajib-ul-arz in the present case s...
Collector of Ghazipur Vs. Balbhaddar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.25
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by respondents Nos 1 and 2 upon three mortgage-deeds executed in their favour, or in favour of their father, in March 1888, and August 1892, by Ram Saran Singh, Lutawan Singh, Bisheshar Singh and Meghu Singh. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the mortgagors and other persons who will be referred to in this judgment: Ram Jiawan, _______________|___________________________ | | Nanku Singh=Rahisa Kuar, Durjan _____________|____________________ | | | | Ram Phal=Babisa Kuar,Lutawan Singh, Bisheshar Singh, Agam Singh, | | | | Ram Saran Singh, | Jadunandan Singh Meghu Singh, | | =Musammat Badami, defendant Thakur Prasad= | | No. 8, Jeonti Kuar, | Ram Lakhan Singh. | defendant | Ram Sagar Singh, No. 9, | defendant No. 7. | | ________________________|_____________ | | | | Jugal Kishore Singh, Balram Singh. | defendant No. 10. |____________________________ _________________________|______________________________ | | | | Kalka Singh, Ambika ...
Ram Dawar Rai and ors. Vs. Bhirgu Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.240
1. On Sawan Sudi Asntami 1237 (28th July 1830), a mortgage by conditional sale was executed by Pabarn Rai and Chittra Bal Rai, predecessors-in-title of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in favour of Bachan Rai, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, to secure a sum of Rs. 800. The deed contains a provision to the effect that the mortgagee shall be entitled to possession at the end of 1257 (18th of September 1850) on default of payment of the mortgage-debt on the due date. I may note here that due date in the judgment of the first Court is stated as the 4th of October, 1850 and in that of the lower Appellate Court as the 4th of April 1850.2. No application for foreclosure was ever made under Regulation XVII of 1806, but on 11th of July 1910, a suit for foreclosure was instituted. Limitation was pleaded in defence. The Courts below accepted it and dismissed the suit.3. The contention in second appeal is that the suit is not time-barred. The substance of the argument of the learned Vakil f...
Niaz Fatima Vs. Tamiz Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.175
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Both the plaintiff and vendee are co-sharers but the plaintiff is the own sister of the vendor while the vendee is alleged to be a more distant relative. The existence of the custom of pre-emption is admitted and there is no dispute that such a custom exists. The only question is whether or not the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiff has sufficiently established a preferential right by adducing the wijibul-arz. According to the wajib-ul-arz, the custom is that the property must first be offered to bhai bhatiji hakiki, that is to say, own brothers and nephews. The parties are Muhmmadans. The Courts have considered that a sister should be included in the expression 'bhai.' We are unable to say that this decision was wrong under the circumstances of the present case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale....
Ram Partap Rai Vs. Ram Phal Teli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.9
Piggott, J.1. The only question now in controversy in this suit is as to the effect of the deed of the 19th of June 1903. By this deed, the plaintiff advanced to the defendants a sum of Rs. 99-15-9. As one of the considerations for this loan, the obtaining of which was the single object of the agreement, so far as the defendants were concerned, the plaintiff obtained from them an agreement that if they failed to pay him the interest from year to year, they would put him in possession of a certain tenant's holding. This was an occupancy holding, the transfer of which is forbidden by law. A part of the consideration obtained by the plaintiff in return for his loan was unlawful and this deed of the 19th of June 1903, consequently, constitutes a void agreement by reason of Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act IX of 1872. I do not consider that Section 58 of the same Act applied to the present case as there was no alternative promise capable of being separated altogether from the illegal p...
Bidhata Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Cheri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.251
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property sold is zemindari. The plaintiffs are owners of isolated plots. They are not co-sharers with the vendors in the sense that they share in the profits of the vendor's property, or the vendors in theirs nor are they jointly responsible for Government revenue. This being the case it lay upon the plaintiffs to prove not only that some custom of pre-emption existed in the village but also that there was a custom of pre-emption which gave the owner of an isolated plot a right of pre-emption in the case of the sale of a zemindari share. The only evidence adduced in support of the case of the plaintiffs was the wajib-ul-arz of 1842 and the of 1S86 and also one case in which pre-emption was claimed, and which resulted in a compromise. It does not appear whether or not the plaintiff in the case was, like the plaintiffs in the case now before us, merely an owner of an isolated plot, or a co-sharer in the zemindari. If he was the lat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »