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.
Dao Dyal Vs. Kali Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.745a
Piggott, J.1. The facts essential to the disposal of this appeal admit of being briefly stated. Certain property was sold at auction under a decree of the Court and was purchased ostensibly by three persons, namely, Jagan Nath Prasad and his two sons. The sons were minors at the time, and, no doubt, Jagan Nath conducted the transaction on their behalf. But he put them forward along with himself as ostensible purchasers and was careful to obtain a sale certificate in favour of all three. One Kali Charan subsequently had occasion to claim, as against Jagan Nath, a portion of the property of which Jagan Nath purported to be in possession under this sale certificate. He brought a suit impleading Jagan Nath alone as defendant and he won that suit. Dao Dayal, son of Jagan Nath, now once more claims this property from Kali Charan, basing his title on the sale certificate already referred to. The Courts below have held that the decision in the suit in which Kali Charan sued Jagan Nath operates...
Ahmad Bakhsh Vs. Saira Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.3
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case claims certain immoveable property as heir to her father and to her mother. For a reason which is sufficiently obvious the plaint is carefully silent on the question of the actual division of inheritance upon the father's death. But the case for the plaintiff may be put as follows : Her father, Sheikh Najibuddin, died leaving him surviving a daughter, a widow and a brother. The brother took possession of a 6/16ths share of the estate and has continued in possession since. The mother died shortly afterwards and her surviving heirs were her daughter (the plaintiff) and her father, who is the defendant in the present suit. What actually followed upon the widow's death was that the plaintiff and the defendant each obtained possession of one half of the estate of Najibuddin after excluding the 6/16ths share in the possession of his surviving brother, that is to say, they took possession of 5/16ths of the estate each. Now the plaintiff's case is that,...
Ganesh Vs. Kundan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.33
Piggott, J.1. The present suit was one for damages upon the allegation that the defendant had cat and carried off the crops upon certain land after the said crops had been grown by the plaintiffs. Incidents, a question arose as to whether the plaintiffs or the defendant were in law the rightful occupancy-tenants of the land in suit. Now, seeing that the suit as brought was one undoubtedly within the cognizance of the Civil Courts, it would seem to be difficult to hold in any case that those Courts were precluded from hearing and determining an issue incidental to the right decision of the suit. In any case, after the decision of a Bench of this Court in Bhup v. Ram Lal 8 A.L.J. 1009 : 11 Ind. Cas. 268 : 33 A. 795, it cannot be said that the Civil Courts are precluded, by reason of Section 167 read with Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), from determining a dispute between rival claimants to an occupancy-tenancy. Once it is admitted that the Courts below had juris...