Allahabad Court July 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 NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Rampat Bhagat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.1007
Piggot, J.1. The facts essential to the disposal of this appeal may be stated as follows: Murat and Lakhan mortgaged with possession to the plaintiffs four plots of land held by them as tenants at fixed-rates. The plaintiffs entered into possession under their mortgage and presumably must have paid rent for the holding to the landholders. Both the mortgagors having died, the landholders claimed to enter into possession of the holding on the ground that the fixed-rate tenants had left no heirs entitled to succeed to the sane. The matters came before the Revenue Courts under those sections of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act (Local), Act III of 1901, which deal with the maintenance and correction of the annual registers. Their decision was in favour of the landholder and the latter succeeded in obtaining actual possession over the plots of land in question. In this suit, filed in the Court of the Munsif of Ballia, the plaintiffs sued the landholders as defendants of the first party,...
Bidya Pershad Ram Tewari Vs. Achaibar Ram Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.865
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff came into Court alleging that he was a co-sharer in the same khata as the vendor while the vendees were more distant co sharers. He then alleged that, according to the custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village, a near' co-sharer had a preferential right over a more distant co-sharer. It is quite clear that the plaintiff was alleging nearness in space as distinguished from nearness of relationship. The Court of first instance originally found that the custom of pre-emption was not proved and that the wajib-ul-arz was an entry of a contract and not of a custom and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the lower Appellate Court held that the custom of pre-emption was proved. We think that this ought to be taken as a finding that the particular custom alleged by the plaintiff in fact existed. When the case came before the Court of first instance a second time on remand, it erroneously went into the question o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›