Allahabad Court July 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.
Badri Prasad Vs. Kailashi Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All548
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. An application for partition was made to the Revenue Court by Lalta Prasad and others. A proclamation was issued as required by Section 110 of the Land Revenue Act, and on the date fixed in the proclamation the appellant, Musammat Kailashi Kunwar, made an application praying that a four annas share, of which she was in possession and in respect of which her name was recorded, should be formed into a separate mahal. This application was opposed by the respondent, Badri Prasad, who contended that Musammat Kailashi Kunwar was not a co-sharer entitled to partition, but was merely in possession in lieu of maintenance. The court of first instance (the Assistant Collector) determined the question of Kailashi Kunwar's right to obtain partition and decided in her favour. On appeal from its decision, the learned District Judge found that Kailashi Kunwar's possession was not as a co-sharer, that is, as a Hindu widow who had succeeded to th...
Brij Lal Vs. Sundar Lal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All543
Ryves, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following facts: Bhagirath and Baldeo, two brothers, formed a joint Hindu family, and owned, amongst other zamindari property, a ten biswa share in mauza Chauwar. They jointly executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff's father, on the 8th of November, 1879, of this ten biswa share in Chauwar.2. On the 16th of November, 1881, the two brothers executed two separate mortgages, in favour of the same mortgagee, in each of which each brother hypothecated a five biswa share in Chauwar for half the amount then due under the original mortgage deed of 1879. These two mortgage bonds were signed by both brothers.3. On the 16th of October, 1888, the joint family property was partitioned privately and the whole ten biwsa share in Chauwar was allotted to Baldeo's share and it became his separate property. Baldeo's mortgage was subsequently discharged, under circumstances related later on.4. The plaintiff, who is the son of the original mortgagee, has now...
Sri Kishan Das and anr. Vs. Yakub Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All505
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The decision of the court below in this case cannot be supported. Ismail Khan and Zarina Khatun were admittedly in possession of the property leaded to them by the plaintiffs. To secure the rent which they agreed to pay for such use and occupation, they hypothecated their property. The present suit was one to enforce the hypothecation. The suit was clearly maintainable, and the court below was wrong in holding that because no patta was granted to the executants of the kabuliat, the rent agreed to be paid was not payable and the security for its payment could not be enforced. This case is similar in some respects to that of Sheo Karan Singh v. Maharaja Prabhu Narain Singh (1909) I.L.R., 31 All., 276. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and remand the case to that court under Order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions to re-admit it under its original number in the register and to d...
Mahadeo Singh and anr. Vs. Sheo Karan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All481
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. In this case one Musammat Lakhpati brought a suit for possession against certain persons who, she alleged, had taken possession of her father's estate. She succeeded in establishing her case and getting a decree for possession. Before, however, the decree for possession could be executed she died, and thereupon her sons applied for execution, but their application was rejected by the court of first instance. On appeal, this decision was reversed and the application of the appellants was allowed. In second appeal, a learned Judge of this Court held that the decision of the court of first instance was correct and ought to be restored. Hence the present appeal.2. In our opinion, the decree of the lower appellate court was correct. Musammat Lakhpati undoubtedly represented her father's estate when she brought the suit, and the persons who succeeded to the estate are entitled to execute the decree which she obtained. Otherwise the re...
Kokla Vs. Piari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All502
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are fully set forth in the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court which is reported in 11 A.L.J.R., 157. To put them very shortly, the dispute is about a moiety of the property which at one time belonged to Mohan Singh. Mohan Singh died in 1903, leaving a brother, Ram Prasad Singh, and a widow, Musammat Kokla, the plaintiff in the present suit. They were disputing about the estate of Mohan Singh. Ram Prasad Singh alleged that he was joint with Mohan Singh, whilst Musammat Kokla said that Mohan Singh was separate. The dispute ended by the parties agreeing that half the property should be recorded as belonging to Musammat Kokla, whilst the other half should be recorded as belonging to Ram Prasad Singh. Later on, Ram Prasad sold the half share that stood in his name, whilst Musammat Kokla sold the half that stood in her name. She then brought the present suit to recover the half that h...
Yad Ram Vs. Cheda Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All478
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The village in which the property is situate is called mauza Sarai Ghasi. At one time this village was divided into a 2 1/2 biswa share, held by the Skinner family, and a 17 1/2 biswa share held by other co-sharers. In course of time the 2 1/2 biswas appear to have been formed into one mahal, and the 17 1/1 biswas into another mahal. The 17 1/2 biswas were afterwards divided into a number of different mahals. The property which is sought to be pre-empted is situate within the Skinner mahal. It appears that on the 13th of February, 1892, this very property was sold and purchased by one Bhola Mal. The present vendor, Ram Sahai, brought a suit for pre-emption, which was successful. Ho was a sharer in another mahal and he based his suit upon a record set forth in the dastur dehi of 1886. His claim was decreed, the court being of opinion that the record in the dastur dehi was one of an arrangement b...
Said-un-nissa and ors. Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All499
Ryves and Lyle, JJ.1. Musammat Said-un-nissa, plaintiff No. 1, is the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 2--6. Of these, Zia-ul-Islam was a major and the rest were minors. Some property belonging to them was under attachment and had been advertized for sale in execution of a decree obtained against Sultan-ul-Haq, the deceased husband of Musammat Said-un-nissa and the father of the remaining plaintiffs. The mother was anxious to sell the property by private contract and applied to the District Judge to be appointed a certificated guardian of her minor sons. This application was granted on the 29th of July, 1911. On the 2nd of September, 1911, Babu Ram applied to the court for leave to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000. The Judge passed an order that 'the applicant, plaintiff No. 1, is allowed to sell the shops at least for Rs. 5,000 to Babu Ram or anyone else who may offer a higher price. The draft of the deed should be filed for the approval of the court.' This order was passed on the 15t...
Bajrangi Lal and ors. Vs. Mahabir Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All476
Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Another question arises in connection with this second appeal. The appeal before us is an appeal against an order under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was valued at Rs. 582-11-9 and was put in on a paper bearing a court fee stamp of Rs. 2. The office reported that the fee payable was Rs. 44-4-0 and that therefore the appellant had to pay a deficiency of Rs. 42-4-0. The appellant raised no objection and made good the deficiency. The stamp-officer of the Court then pointed out that for similar reasons the decree-holders, the respondents in this appeal, were liable to pay a court fee of Rs. 105, instead of the court fee of eight annas which they paid on their appeal in the court of the District Judge. There was, therefore, a deficiency of Rs. 104-8-0 due from them. The respondents contested this report, and the Judge of this Court, to whom a reference was made, and who happens to be the Taxing Judge of the Court, held that the matter...
Ranno Singh Vs. Janki Misir and anr. and Mahadeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All472
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Both the courts below decreed the claim. The defendant vendee appeals. He argues first that the extract from the wajib-ul-arz is ambiguous and not sufficient to prove the existence of the custom. He also argues that there was other evidence as to the non-existence of the custom which the court below has failed to appreciate; and lastly, it is argued that the court was not competent to set aside the lease mentioned in the plaint. We can see no ambiguity in the clause in the wajib-ul-arz. We, therefore, think that the courts below were right in holding that it was good prima facie evidence of the existence of a custom of pre-emption in this village, and that it was an incident of that custom that a relation ek-jaddi had preference over a co-sharer who was not ek-jaddi. The court below has found that the lease was not bona fide and was merely part of a scheme to avoid pre-emption. We are-bound by ...
Mahant Ramanand Gir Vs. Parmanand Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All474
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. Two grounds of appeal are mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, namely, that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the property and secondly that the suit was barred by limitation. We are unable to accept the argument in favour of this last ground of appeal. With regard to the first point, it is urged that nobody except a human being is capable of acquiring or holding an 'occupancy' tenancy, and reliance is placed upon a ruling of the Board of Revenue, No. 19 of 1912, Babu Hira Das v. Pandit Sheo Dat Tiwari. It has to be admitted that property of all descriptions generally speaking, can be held by a math; but it is attempted to draw a distinction between an occupancy holding and other classes of property. In the present case the courts below have found that the property which it is sought to redeem formed portion of the math property and that it was held by the mortgagor as mah...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›