Allahabad Court June 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.
Ganesh Tewari and ors. Vs. Salik Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All340; 25Ind.Cas.32
Piggott, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one in which a single co-sharer in a mahal sued the remaining co-sharers in order to enforce certain alleged rights. It appears that there was in the mahal in question an occupancy holding belonging to one Musammat Samundra Kuar who also occupied as an appurtenance to her holding a house situated in the same mahal. This Musammat Samundra Kuar appears to have entered into a bargain with one of the co-sharers, namely, the 1st defendant in this suit, and executed in his favour what purports to be a sale-deed of her occupancy holding and of her house. Apparently the remaining co-sharers are related to defendant No. 1 and are acting with him in this matter, for the plaintiff says that they refused to join in the present suit. The plaintiff comes into Court claiming either a declaration that he is jointly in possession with all the defendants of the plots of land which formed the occupancy holding of Musammat Samundra Kuar and the si...
Sri Ram Alias Sirya Vs. Muhammad-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All122; 25Ind.Cas.40
Piggott, J.1. In this case the father of the plaintiff gave a lease of certain specified plots of land to two persons, Behari and Baldeo. It does not appear to have been denied in this litigation, and in any case is proved by the statement of the Patwari, a witness strongly hostile to the plaintiff) that the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff after him was solely entitled to collect the rents of these plots of land and could, therefore, give a lease of the same. When the period of lease had expired the tenants gave no relinquishment and have been found by the lower Appellate Court to have continued to hold on. Baldeo has died leaving two sons who are impleaded in this suit as having succeeded to Baldeo in the tenancy. Behari has a son Sri Ram, alias Sirya, who has been impleaded under peculiar circumstances. The plaintiff's case is that the said Sirya has acquired by purchase a share in the milk to which the plots of land in suit appertain, that he has been let into possession of the...
Dau Dial Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All98; 24Ind.Cas.978
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed that it might be declared that a decree obtained by the defendant No. 1 in the Calcutta High Court was fraudulent and false and that it might be set aside as against the plaintiff and his father and an injunction might be issued to restrain the said defendant from taking out execution of the decree and directing him to release attached property from attachment.2. The Court below held that the cause of action did not arise in Mainpuri and accordingly returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. The plaintiff comes here complaining of this order.3. The foundation of the plaintiff's case is the granting of a decree in Calcutta which is said to have been obtained by fraud. It appears that the decree was obtained in the year 1908 in the Court of first instance and was confirmed by the Appellate Court in the year 1903. The present suit was not instituted until the year 1911. It is stated that ...
Ram Chandar Vs. Beni Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All560
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the following circumstances. There were commercial dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants. In October, 1909, a balance was struck, and it was found that Rs. 4,000 odd were due by the defendants to the plaintiff, An arrangement was come to by -which the defendants agreed to pay off this sum by monthly payments of Rs. 50. Certain instalments were paid in pursuance of this arrangement and were duly credited to the defendants in the books of the plaintiff. Later on the plaintiff asked the defendants if they would accept a hundi for Rs. 500 if the plaintiff drow the same upon them and that the plaintiff would credit the defendants with the Rs. 500 in the books being the amount of the hundi. The defendants agreed to this. The plaintiff drew the hundi, the defendants accepted it but did not pay the amount on due date. The plaintiff had to pay the holder of the hundi and then brought a suit against...
Musammat Bhagwani and anr. Vs. Khushi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All496; 24Ind.Cas.997
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of the estate of one Harbans, by caste Jat, who died about August 17th, 1907, leaving him surviving his two daughters, Musammat Bhagwani and Musammat Risal Kunwar, the defendants-appellants, and three reversioners Khushi Ram, Nihal and Jhanku, Harbans was the son of Shadi Ram who had two brothers, Neehal and Ganga Ram The three reversioners were all grandsons of Neehal through his sons Heth Ram,Har Lal and Pat Ram.2. The first plaintiff is Khushi Ram, plaintiffs Nos. 2--6 are the sons of Nihal and plaintiff No. 7 is the son of Jhanku. Nihal and Jhanku have died since the death of Harbans. On the death of Harbans his two daughters obtained possession of his estate and secured mutation of names by an order dated 9th October 1907.3. The parties are Jats resident in the Meerut District of the Province of Agra. The plaintiffs pleaded (vide paragraph 2 of the plaint) that according to a custom (1) of the family, (2) of the ...
Bhabhuti Rai and ors. Vs. Harbans Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All116; 25Ind.Cas.1
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit for possession of a certain zemindari share to which the plaintiffs acquired title as follows: There was a mortgage dated June the 7th, 1900, by the proprietors of the share in favour of the plaintiffs' ancestors. On June the 3rd, 1904, a decree for sale was obtained on foot of this mortgage against the-mortgagors. In execution of this decree a sale took place on June the 20th, 1908, when the decree-holders themselves purchased it. On endeavouring to obtain possession the plaintiffs found themselves resisted by the present defendants, who held under a sale-deed dated September the 22nd, 1902, from one Oma Nath. This Oma Nath had obtained a simple money decree against the original mortgagors, in execution of which he attached this same property, brought it to sale and purchased it himself on May the 20th, 1901. The original mortgage of the 7th of June 1900 was not registered and there was no presumption that Oma Nath had knowledge of its existence. At any r...
Shaikh Muhammad Vs. Shaikh Qadir Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All400; 25Ind.Cas.188
Piggott, J.1. This, appeal arises out of certain proceedings connected with a partition case in the Revenue Courts. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to, and also to be in possession of,a fractional share which stood recorded in the name of other co-sharers. He brought his claim before the Assistant 'Collector conducting the partition and eventually, on the 19th of July Will, under an order passed, by the Commissioner in appeal he was required to institute within three months a suit in: a Civil Court for the determination, of the question- in dispute between himself and the other co-sharers. He did institute-a suit within three months as required. Eventually he presented an application to be permitted to withdraw that suit with liberty to bring a fresh one on the same cause of action under the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, and he received such permission, the order under which the suit originally instituted was withdrawn being, dated the 20th, of May 1912, ...
Nawab Hasan and anr. Vs. Tahir-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All558
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows. One Zahur-ul-Hasan died on the 21st of February, 1904, leaving him surviving the plaintiff Chaudhri Nur-ui-Hasan his brother, and the defendant No. I, his daughter. (It was alleged by the defendant that he also left a widow Musammat Begam Bibi, but this the court below has found to be incorrect). The plaintiff complains that the defendant No. 1 has got more than her share of the property of the deceased Zahur-ul-Hasan, and he accordingly brings this suit praying that he may be put into possession of a moiety share in the property and awarded, mesne profits.2. The court of first instance partially decreed the plaintiffs claim. The lower appellate court modified the decree of the court of first instance.3. The only question which we have to decide in the present appeal is the following. It is stated that Musammat Tahir-un-nissa was peaceably in possession of the estate of her f...
Jadunath Lal and anr. Vs. Bachhu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All123(2); 25Ind.Cas.43
Chamier, J.1. On the pleadings it is admitted that the land on which the defendants propose to build is the joint land of the parties. The defendants did not set up a title to the land by adverse possession. The issue fixed did not suggest adverse possession and there was no finding that the defendants have held adversely to their co-sharers. All that is found is that the defendants have been in separate occupation or have had made separate use of the land. This does not entitle them to erect permanent structures on it against the wishes of their co-sharers. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tahirunnissa Vs. Nawab Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All186; 24Ind.Cas.938
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows : One Zahur-ul-Husan died on the 21st of February 1904, leaving him surviving the plaintiff Chaudhri Nur-ul Hasan, his brother, and the defendant No. 1, his daughter. (It was alleged by the defendant that he also left a widow, Musammat Begam Bibi, bat this the Court below has found to be incorrect). The plaintiff complains that the defendant No. 1 has got more than her share of the property of the deceased Zihur-ul-Hasan, and he accordingly brings this suit that he may be put into possession of a moiety share in the property and mesne profits.2. The Court of first instance partially decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The lower Appellate Court modified the decree of the Court of first instance.3. The only question which we have to decide in the present appeal is the following. It is stated that Musammat Tahirunnissa was peaceably in possession of the estate of her father, that she was entitled as heir to her mother to the letter's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »