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.
Asghar HussaIn Vs. Pal Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.227
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The predecessors-in-title of the defendants respondents were occupancy-tenants of a certain holding. On the 4th of June 1835, they mortgaged this holding describing it as a fixed-rate tenure in favour of the zemindar of the village. A suit was brought to enforce the mortgage in December 1895 and on the 27th of July 1893, a decree for sale was passed. On the 23rd of August 1397, the property was sold as a fixed-rate tenure and was purchased by the plaintiff a stranger to that suit. The judgment-debtors objected to the zemindar bring allowed to bid at the sale. On the 2nd of November 1897, a sale-certificate was granted to the plaintiff. From that date up to the 16th of October 1908, the plaintiff had been in possession of the holding paying rent to the zemindar. On the latter date, he was dispossessed by the defendants, who asserted that the land was their occupancy-tenure. Hence the present suit was brought by...
Jaggu Ahir Vs. Murli Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All533
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. The question referred to us is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Letters Patent (especially by Section 22) to transfer from the court of one Magistrate to the court of another Magistrate a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a conflict of authority on the point. In In re Pandurang Govimd Pujari (1900) I.L.R., 25 Bom., 179 it was held that the High Court had no power under Section 526 of the Code to transfer a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code from one court to another. The reason given is that such a proceeding is not a 'criminal case' within the meaning of Section 526, that a criminal case means a case arising out of and dealing with some crime already committed and does not include proceedings taken for the prevention of a crime. The Madras High Court in Arumuga Tegundan (1902) I.L.R., 26 Mad., 188 dissented from the Bombay case. The lea...
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Muqarrab Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All530
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. In this case property was attached on the 17th of July, 26th of July, 27th of July, 28th of July, and 12th of August, 1909. The decree-holder along with his application filed an affidavit, dated the 15th of May, 1909, giving full particulars as required by Order XXI, Rule 66. After all these proceedings the judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree. His objection was disallowed and his appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. When the record went back to the court below in September, 1910, notice was issued to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 66, and the decree-holder was directed to file an affidavit under the same rule. But as no affidavit was filed by him, the court, on the 11th of November, 1910, struck off the case for default. The order runs as follows :--'The decree-holder notwithstanding two adjournments has failed to prosecute the proceedings. The case, therefore, can-not be adjourned any more. The proceedings are st...
Muhammad Ishaq Vs. Nathu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.342
Chamier, J.1. Baksha and the defendant, Nathu, were tenants of an occupancy -holding. On Baksha's death, which occurred some eighteen years ago, the defendant retained possession of the entire holding, although Baksha had left a daughter, Sahiba. The plaintiff in this case is the son of Sahiba. He alleges that Sahiba, during her life-time, received one-half of the profits of the holding, but the Court below has found that this is not true. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is barred by adverse possession on the part of Nathu maintained for over twelve years. It appears that when Baksha died, his daughter's name was entered on the record as his successor. The learned District Judge appears to have held that the plaintiff's claim was barred simply because the defendant was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the profits of the holding for more than twelve years. From the language which he has used, I cannot help thinking that h...
Ghulam Hazrat Vs. Gulzari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.42
Piggott, J.1. One' Chaudhri Ghulam Hamid died, somewhere in 1877, possessed of considerable landed property. On July 16th, 1879, his heirs executed what is in substance a deed of partition dividing amongst themselves the property of the deceased, with the exception of a certain share in village Nagar, which they admitted to have been dedicated by Chaudhri Ghulam Hamid, in his life-time, to a certain religious purpose. Under the terms of the deed of partition, Musammat Riazunnissa, one of the widows of the deceased, obtained possession of certain property In village Sirsa Dabri. This is described in the specification appended to the deed as consisting of a certain share in the zemindari of the village, together with a certain area of muafi land. On August 8th, 1905, this lady, purporting to act as proprietor, co-sharer and muafidar of village Sirsa Dabri, executed in favour of Gulzari Lal and Shib Charan Lal a twenty years' lease of some three biswas and odd of her zemindari share toget...
Abdur Rafey Khan Vs. Banni Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.36
1. In this case the plaintiff, Maulvi Muhammad Abdur Rafey Khan, is the first cousin of one Maulvi Abdul Wajid Khan, deceased, and sues to recover possession of the three-fourths share in the estate left by the deceased which would fall to him under Muharkmadan Law. The defendants are Musammat Banni Begam, widow of the deceased, and Yusuf Ali Khan, the designated mutawalli of a wakf said to have been created by Abdul Wajid Khan in his lifetime The suit has been decreed in respect of a few items of property with which we are not now concerned as they were not included in the alleged wakf; but the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the bulk of the plaintiff's claim upon a finding that the property concerned formed the subject of a valid wakf duly created by Maulvi Abdul Wajid Khan in his life-time. This finding is contested by the plaintiff before us in appeal. His contention is that Abdul Wajid Khan never did create, and never intended to create, any valid wakf, or at any rate that...
Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Muqarrab Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.50
1. In this case property was attached on the 17th of July, 20th of July, 27th of July, 28th of July and 12th of August 1909. The decree-holder along with his application filed an affidavit dated the 15th of May 1909 giving full particulars as required by Order XXI, Rule 66. After all these proceedings, the judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree. His objection was disallowed and his appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. When the record went back to the Court below in September 1910, notice was issued to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 66 and the decree-holder was directed to file an affidavit under the same rule. But as no affidavit was filed by him, the Court on the 11th of November 1910 struck off the case for default. The order runs as follows: 'The decree-holder notwithstanding two adjournments has failed to prosecute the proceedings. The case, therefore, cannot be adjourned any more. The proceedings are struck off'. The Court, however, subsequently...
Piari Lal and ors. Vs. Makhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR34All528
Karamat Husain and Tudball, JJ.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage. One of the pleas in defence was payment of the entire sum due on it. In support of that plea a receipt, dated Asadh Sudi 3rd, Sambat 1950, corresponding to 16th June, 1893, was produced. The court of first instance came to the conclusion that the receipt was not proved and that the payment was not proved. It, therefore, decreed the claim. There was an appeal to the lower appellate court, which found that the receipt was genuine, and reversed the decree of the first court. The plaintiff's have preferred a second appeal to this Court, and two points are pressed before us. The first is that there is nothing in the receipt and in the oral evidence adduced by the defendants to establish that the receipt refers to the mortgage which is the basis of the suit. The second is that the receipt purports to extinguish the right in the mortgaged property, and that, as it is unregistered, it is inadmissible in evidence. The receipt is...
Piare Lal and ors. Vs. Makhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.179
1. This was a suit upon a mortgage. One of the pleas in defence was payment of the entire sum due on it. In support of that plea, a receipt, dated Asadh Sudi 3rd, Sambat 1950, corresponding to 16th June 1893, was produced: The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the receipt was not proved and that the payment was not proved. It, therefore, decreed the claim. There was an appeal to the lower Appellate Court which found that the receipt was genuine, and reversed the decree of the first Court. The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court, and two points are pressed before us. The first is that there is nothing in the receipt and in the oral evidence adduced by the defendant to establish that the receipt refers to the mortgage which is the basis of the suit. The second is that the receipt purports to extinguish the right in the mortgaged property, and that as it is unregistered, it is inadmissible in evidence. The receipt is to the following effect: 'The bond...
Sanwal Kunwar Vs. Murli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.339
Piggott, J.1. This is a curious case and has had a curious history. The plaintiff is the proprietor of certain land which was leased to the defendant, as an agricultural tenant, for a period of seven years, from 1308 to 1314 Fasli, inclusive. There was a clause in the contract of lease to the following effect: That at the end of 1314 Fasli, the defendant would peacefully vacate the land in suit without raising any objection: and that in the event of his failing to do so, he should be liable to pay rent thereafter at the rate of Rs. 400 per annum. On the expiration of the prescribed period, the defendant did not vacate the land, and the plaintiff thereupon took proceedings against him for ejectment under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901). The defendant claimed the benefit of the provisions of Section 67 of that Act, and the Court concerned found in his favour on this point. It proceeded to determine further that the enhancement of rent which could fairly and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »