Allahabad Court May 1914 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.
Ghansam Vs. Biranchi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All477; 25Ind.Cas.301
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The Munsif decided that a custom, of pre-emption did exist and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that there was no custom of pre-emption and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit without deciding the other issue, namely, what was the sale price. In support of the allegation that a custom of pre-emption prevailed, the plaintiff produced an extract from the Wajib-ul-arz of 1879 and also two judgments, one of which was between the same parties as in the present suit. As against this the defendant produced no evidence except an extract from the Wajib-ul-arz of 1833. This admittedly proves nothing either way. At that time Government had taken over the zemindari evidently for non-payment of revenue. The learned Subordinate Judge in dealing with the Wajib-ul-arz of 1879 points out that it was only to remain in force from 1879 to 1900, and states that this fact clearly shows that the reference to pr...
Kamta Parshad and ors. Vs. Gulzar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All143; 25Ind.Cas.413
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Practically speaking the only evidence in support of the alleged custom of pre-emption was an extract from the Wajib-ul-arz. The pre-emption clause is as follows:Of the co-sharers if any co-sharer wants to sell or mortgage his share, then he should do so first to bear relations, then to near co-sharers, and when none of them takes, then he may transfer it to a stranger. If a co-sharer does not take, then the near relations and the co-sharers according to the above order have the right to take it by right of pre-emption and the mode for redeeming a mortgage is this, that when the mortgagor or his heir pays the amount of the mortgage money entered in the deed, he may take back the mortgaged share. If any co-sharer has mortgaged or made a conditional mortgage of his share to a stranger and the term of the mortgage or sale be about to expire and the notice for* foreclosure has been issued, then another co-sharer owing to the poverty of t...
Gulzari Mal and anr. Vs. Jai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All441
Henry Richards, C.J. Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the lambardar against a tenant (purporting to be under the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act) for ejectment. The court of first instance gave a decree. The lower appellate court held that the lambardar could not bring the suit without joining the other co-sharers and accordingly reversed the decree of the court of first instance. On second appeal to this Court a learned Judge took the same view as the lower appellate court and dismissed the appeal.2. As the question is one of very considerable importance it has been fully argued before this Bench. The contention put forward on behalf of the respondent is as follows: That there are in this mahal a number of co-sharers, and that accordingly under the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act, the suit cannot be maintained unless all the co-sharers join in the suit, and that the dambardar cannot be regarded as the agent ...
Amina Bibi Vs. Banarsi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All392; (1914)ILR36All439
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal has arisen out of proceedings in execution. The decree-holder Banarsi Prasad obtained a simple money decree on the 24th of August, 1900, against one Amir Ahmad. The latter died leaving two widows, a son, a daughter and two paternal uncles as his heirs. He died indebted to a considerable extent and his creditors had obtained decrees against him. Banarsi Prasad made several attempts to execute his decree and it was paid off partially in 1905. On the 16th of March, 1909, Banarsi Prasad filed an application for execution of his decree against the present appellant, Musammat Amina Bibi, one of the widows of Amir Ahmad. The decree-holder asked for attachment and sale of certain property in the possession of Amina Bibi alleging it to have originally belonged to Amir Ahmad, the judgment debtor. As this application of the 16th of March, 1909, was filed more than a year after the last application for execution the court ordered notice to issue to Ami...
Ram Charan Sahu and ors. Vs. Mata Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All446
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. This is on appeal from ah order of the learned Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur, remanding the case under order XLI, Rule 23, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circumstances which led to the making of that order are as follows: Baijnath and Jagannath were two brothers who were members of a joint Hindu family. In 1878 a simple money decree was passed in favour of Baijnath against one Ramjas. There was a partition among the two brothers, Baijnath and Jagannath, in 1881 when it was declared that Jagannath had also a share in the decree of 1878. Subsequent to the partition, among the two brothers they applied jointly for the execution of the decree of 1878 against Ramjas. In execution of that decree the entire village of Karma with some other property was attached on the 20th of September, 1884. During the continuance of that attachment and before the property was brought to sale, Ramjas executed a deed of mortgage in respect of 8 annas of village ...
Mata Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Charan Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.381
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur, remanding the case under Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code. The circumstances which led to the making of that order are as follows: Baijnath and Jagannath were two brothers who were members of a joint Hindu family. In 1878 a simple money decree was passed in favour of Baijnath against one Ramjas. There was a partition among the two brothers, Baijnath and Jagannath, in 1881 when it was declared that Jagannath had also a share in the decree of 1878. Subsequent to the partition among the two brothers they applied jointly for the execution of the decree of 1878 against Ramjas. In execution of that decree the entire village of Karma with some other property was attached on the 20th of September 1884. During the continuance of that attachment and before the property' was brought to sale, Ramjas executed a deed of mortgage in respect of 8-annas of village Karma in favour of the defendants, 1st par...
Gulzari Lal and anr. Vs. Jai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All104; 24Ind.Cas.178
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the lambardar against a tenant (purporting to be under the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act) for ejectment. The Court of first instance gave a decree. The lower Appellate Court held that the lambardar without joining the other co-sharers could not bring the suit and accordingly reversed the decree of the Court of first instance. On second appeal to this Court a learned Judge took the same view as the lower Appellate Court and dismissed the appeal.2. As the question is one of very considerable importance it has been fully argued before this Bench. The contention put forward on behalf of the respondent is as follows :That there are in this mahal a number of co-sharers, and that accordingly under the provisions of Section 194 of the Tenancy Act, the suit cannot be maintained unless all the co-sharers join in the suit, and that the lambardar cannot be regarded as the agent appointed by them, to act on their behalf. If this contentio...
Sital Prasad Vs. the Municipal Board of Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All430
Chamier, J.1. The applicant was ordered by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore to pull down a chajja which was alleged to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition. On his disobeying the order he was prosecuted Under Section 147 of the Municipalities Act and was fined Rs. 5. As he persisted in disobeying the Board's order he has been prosecuted again and he has been fined Rs. 20 at the rate of Rs. 2 for each day that elapsed since the original conviction. At the second trial he wished to challenge the correctness of the first conviction by showing that the Board's notice was illegal and so forth. The Magistrate refused to allow this to be done, and in my opinion the view taken by the Magistrate is correct. Before the institution of the second prosecution the applicant challenged the correctness of the first conviction by means of applications to the District Magistrate and to this Court, but his applications were thrown out. It seems to me impossible to hold that after a conviction Under Sec...
Bisheshar Dayal and anr. Vs. Jwala Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All426
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, in which the plaintiffs claimed money from the defendants as payable to them in connection with the sale of the contents of a grain pit. The plaintiffs in their plaint alleged that they were commission agents and were employed by the defendants to purchase the grain pit, that they did purchase it on behalf of the defendants, but that subsequently, the defendants being unwilling or unable to pay the balance of the purchase money or to give security, the grain pit was re-sold at a loss, and their claim is made up of their commission and the difference between the price at which the pit was purchased and re-sold. The defence was that the transaction was a gambling transaction, and further that the pit was re-sold without the authority of the defendants. The court of first instance granted a decree to the plaintiffs holding that the transaction was not in the nature of an agreement by way of wager, with...
Sital Parshad Vs. the Municipal Board of Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All409; 25Ind.Cas.323
Chamier, J.1. The applicant was ordered by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore to pull down a chajja which was alleged to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition. On his disobeying the order he was prosecuted under Section 147 of the Municipalities. Act and was fined Rs. 5. As he persisted in disobeying the Board's order he has been prosecuted again and he has been fined Rs. 20 at the rate of Rs. 2 for each day that elapsed since the original conviction. At the second trial he wished to challenge the correctness of the first conviction by showing that the Board's notice was illegal and so forth, The Magistrate refused to allow this to be done and, in my opinion, the view taken by the Magistrate is correct. Before the institution of the second, prosecution the applicant challenged the correctness of the first conviction by means of applications to the District Magistrate and to this Court, but his applications were thrown out. It seems to me impossible to hold that after a conviction, under...