Allahabad Court March 1913 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.
Raghunandan Prasad Vs. Sheo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All308
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. The appellant and the respondent were rival candidates for a seat on the municipal board of Bareilly at an election held on the 18th of March, 1911. The respondent having been declared to have been duly elected, the appellant on the 24th of March, contested the validity of the election by a petition presented to the District Magistrate. On the 10th of May that petition was rejected, and on the following day the appellant brought this suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly claiming a declaration that he had been elected by a majority of the lawful votes given and, in the alternative, a declaration that the election was void having been held under rules which had been cancelled. This Court has already held that the suit is cognizable by a civil court, but the suit has been dismissed by an appellate order of the District Judge on the ground that the election was held under rules made in 1884, one of which barred jurisdiction of the civil co...
Sheo Chaudhri and ors. Vs. Sadho Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.948
Banerji, J.1. This was a suit for possession of property left by one Madho, who has been found to have been separate from the other members of his family. It has also been found that the property in question was Madho's separate property and was acquired by him. Madho died in 1899, leaving a widow, Musammat Ratni, who died on March 26th, 1911. The plaintiff, Sadho, is the brother of Madho and as such is entitled to succeed to the property after the widow's death. The appellants vendor, Ram Ratan, appears to have been in possession after the death of Madho and it is claimed on his behalf that Ram Ratan's possession since the death of Madho bars the claim of the plaintiff. The person who was entitled to possession upon the death of Madho, was his widow, Musammat Ratni. Adverse possession against the widow had the effect of extinguishing the widow's right and vesting it in the person who was in adverse possession.. That right come to an end on the death of the widow and, therefore, the re...
Sahib Dyal Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Auliyai Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.1004
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances:2. The decree-holders who are the appellants here finally obtained a decree on the 18th of December 1902 and on the 28th of January 1905 applied for execution of the decree by sale of certain ancestral property belonging to the judgment-debtors. On the 20th of May 1905, the decree was transmitted by the learned Subordinate Judge to the Collector of the District for execution and proceedings continued in the Court of the Collector up to the 20th of May 1909. Apparently, the sale of the property was repeatedly postponed. The cause of one postponement was that a third person brought a suit claiming the property for himself and in the course of that suit obtained an injunction restraining the execution of this decree. When the sale was again postponed under this injunction, the Collector passed the following order:3. Aj pesh hokar zahir hua hi yah mukadma san 1905 iswi se dair hai aur barabar nilam multavi hota ata hai aj phir adalat...
Soni Ram Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All227
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on the 4th of March, 1907, by Lala Soni Ram the appellant here for the redemption of a mortgage which had been made on the 2nd of January, 1842, by the then owners of mauza Kheria Buzurg in favour of Khushwakt Rai, who was on the making of the mortgage put in possession by the mortgagors. The mortgage was usufructuary, the profits, except Rs. 80 per annum, were to be taken by the mortgagee in lieu of interest and the mortgagee was to pay to the mortgagors annually the Rs. 80 as malikana.2. By the mortgage it was provided that the mortgagors should be entitled to redeem and to obtain possession of the mortgaged property on payment of Rs. 4,000, which was the amount advanced to them. No date for the redemption of the mortgage was specified, and consequently the mortgage became liable to be redeemed immediately after it was made. The whole 20 biswas of Kheria Buzurg were included in the mortgage, but the original mortgag...
Sumera Vs. Birham Khushal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All299
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, which was originally brought by the plaintiff Sumera in the Munsif's court, first, to have it declared that he was the son and lawful heir of one Jhau, deceased, and, as such, was entitled to the possession of a certain occupancy holding left by Jhau, and, secondly, for possession of the same as an occupancy tenant. The plaintiff claimed to be the legitimate son of Jhau and as such entitled to the holding. The zamindar resisted the claim. The plaintiff first of all applied to the revenue court for mutation of names in his favour. The zamindar objected, pleading that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Jhau. The application was disallowed. The plaintiff then brought a suit, under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, in the revenue court, asking for a declaration that he was the occupancy tenant of the holding. The suit was against the zamindar, who again raised the plea that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of...
Anrut Rai and ors. Vs. Jaleshar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All302
George Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. It appears that one Payag Rai, father of the first five defendants appellants and grandfather of the other six, executed a deed of mortgage on the 27th of September, 1883, in favour of Anrut Rai plaintiff respondent No. 1, and the ancestors of the other plaintiffs respondents. The mortgage was given in respect of ancestral property in lieu of Rs. 999, carrying fourteen annas per cent per mensem interest, and was redeemable on the 27th of June, 1885. In 1891 the mortgagees instituted a suit against Payag Rai only without impleading his sons, to recover, Rs. l,567-7-4 1/2 the amount due on foot of the mortgage of 1883 and for sale of the mortgaged property in default of payment. One of the objections to the suit was that post diem interest at the stipulated rate of fourteen annas per cent. per mensem could not be claimed under the terms of the deed of the 27th of September, 1883. The court of first instance disallowed the objection and passed a decre...
Jaleshwar Rai and ors. Vs. Anrut Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.904
1. It appears that one Payag Rai, father of the first five defendants-appellants and grandfather of other six, executed a deed of mortgage on the 27th of September 1883 in favour of Anrut Rai, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, and the ancestors of the other plaintiffs-respondents. The mortgage was given in respect of ancestral property in lieu of Rs. 999, carrying 14 annas per cent, per mensem interest, and was redeemable on June 27th, 1885. In 1891, the mortgagees instituted a suit against Payag Rai only, without impleading his sons, to recover Rs. 1.567-7-4 1/2, the amount due on foot of the mortgage of 1883 and for sale of the mortgaged property in default of payment. One of the objections to the suit was that post diem interest at the stipulated rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem could not be claimed under the terms of the deed of September 27th, 1883. The Court of first instance disallowed the objection and passed a decree on July 3rd, 1891, against Payag Rai for Rs. 1,548-11-6. On a...
Yusuf Ali Beg Vs. Ayub Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.920
1. This was a suit by the appellant for a share in the property of his father, Umar Daraz Beg, who died on May 11th, 1399. It appears that Umar Daraz was the owner of some property which he transferred by a deed of gift to his wife, Musammat Nijabat Begam. She died in 1899, leaving her husband, two sons and a daughter surviving her. Accordingly, 25 sahams out of an assumed 100 sahams passed to Umar Daraz Beg, 30 sahams to each of the sons and 15 sahams to the daughter. Umar Daraz Beg, as already stated, died in 1899. The question is of what his property then consisted. His son Yakub Ali has been missing since 1897. The plaintiff's case is that Yakub Ali should be presumed to have died in 1897 so that his property passed to his father Umar Daraz and the latter's property should be considered to be 55 sahams out of the original 100 sahams. The lower Appellate Court has held that there is no proof and no presumption that Yakub Ali died in the life-time of his father. All that can be presu...
Sri Mahant Bramha Khushal Vs. Sumera
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.957
1. This appeal arises out of a suit, which was originally brought by the plaintiff, Sumera, in the Munsif's Court, first, to have it declared that he was the son and lawful heir of one Jhan deceased and as such was entitled to the possession of a certain occupancy holding left by Jhan, and, secondly, for possession of the same as an occupancy tenant. The plaintiff claimed to be the legitimate son of Jhan and as such entitled to the holding. The zemindar resisted the claim. The plaintiff first of all applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of names in his favour. The zemindar objected, pleading that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Jhan. The application was disallowed. The plaintiff then brought a suit under Section 95 of the Tenancy Act in the Revenue Court asking for a declaration that he was the occupancy tenant of the holding. The suit was as against the zemindar, who again raised the plea that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Jhan. The first Court dismissed ...
Abdul Ghafur Vs. Ghulam HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All296
Harry Griffin and Chamier, JJ.1. This was a suit by the appellant for possession of a share in patti Mumtaz-ud-din in mahal Fakir Bakhsh, mauza Mani Umarpur. This share was put up for sale on the 20th of September, 1910, in execution of a decree of a civil court. The plaintiff's bid was Rs. 530. The respondents offered the same amount and the share was knocked down to them under Order XXI, Rule 88, on their showing that they had purchased two other shares in the same patti on the 11th of August, 1910. The appellant was at the time the holder of a share in the other patti in the mahal, namely, patti Fakir Bakhsh, but held no share in patti Mumtaz-ud-din. His case is that he was at the time of the sale a co-sharer within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 88, and that the respondents must be regarded as strangers, inasmuch as their title to the shares purchased by them on the 11th of August, 1910, was at the time defeasible and they have since been compelled to surrender those shares to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »