Allahabad Court May 1915 Judgments
inayat-un-nissa Vs. Salim-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.568
1. The point of law raised by this second appeal is whether a suit by one person claiming to be the occupancy tenant of a certain holding against another person also claiming to be the occupancy tenant of the same holding, in which the relief sought is a declaration of the plaintiff's title or in the alternative recovery of possession, where the zemindar, to whom the rent of the holding is payable is no party, is maintainable in a Civil Court. Sitting singly we have both of us been disposed to take the same view on this controverted point as did another learned Judge of this Court, on the strength of whose reported decision the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit. We find, however, that so far as reported decisions of two Judges of this Court go, there is a strong concensus of opinion the other way. We may refer to the cases of Bhup v. Bam Lal 11 Ind. Cas. 208 : 38 A. 795 : 8 A.L.J. 1009 and Kanhi Earn v. Durga Prasad 27 Ind. Cas. 913 : 13 A.L.J. 278 : 37 A. 223. We think it b...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Kuar Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All535; 30Ind.Cas.789
Pramada Charan Banerji and Rafique, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for possession of two shops and the rooms on the upper storey of these shops and for a declaration that a decree, dated the 4th of June, 1907, of the court of the Additional Judge of Cawnpore is null and void and ineffectual. The property in question along with other property originally belonged to one Balak Ram. He made an endowment of portions of his property and left the remainder to his two widows. The survivor of them made a gift in favour of one Bindeshri Prasad in 1903. The plaintiff is the successor-in-title of Bindeshri Prasad In the year 1907 the defendants, the trustees of the endowment, brought a suit against Bindeshri Prasad to set aside the gift on the ground that the property comprised in it was part of the endowed property and that the donor power to make the gift. That suit related to a residential house and apparently to two shops. situated in front of the hou...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan and ors. Vs. Khayali Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All573
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer in the mahal, although he is a proprietor in the village. The vendees also are not co-sharers in the same mahal. They are stated to be grove-holders in another mahal. The plaintiff adduced in evidence an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1873. This records that there is a right of pre-emption, first, with own brothers and nephews, then with cousins who arc co-sharers, then, with co-sharers in the patti and then with co-sharers in the village. At that time the village consisted of one mahal, which was sub-divided into two pattis. We may point out here that the court below has made a very important mistake. It states that the village was then divided into two mahals. The other evidence in support of the existence of the custom consisted of the wajib-ul-arz which was framed at the last settlement. By this time the village had been divided into a number of different mahals a...
Tag this Judgment!Dambar Singh Vs. Munawar Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.775
Chamier, J.1. One Sri Kishan Das obtained a decree for possession of property and costs against several persons including the respondents. When execution was taken out in 1905, the respondents protested that they had never been anything but pro forma defend ants and that the decree should not be interpreted as making them jointly liable for costs alone with other defendants who had contested the suit. A petition of compromise was filed on April 20th, 1906, in which the decree-holder admitted in express terms that he had no claim against the respondents under the decree, and this compromise was made the basis of an order of the Court releasing the property of the respondents from attachment. Shortly after that the decree-holder sold the decree to the appellant, who in 1907 took out execution against the respondents. They put in an objection and the Court decided that the respondents were no longer liable under the decree. The appellant brought the case before this Court on appeal, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Khayali Ram and anr. Vs. Kali Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All150; 29Ind.Cas.1000a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer in the mahal although he is a proprietor in the village. The vendees also are not co-sharers in the same mahal. They are stated to be grove-holders in another mahal. The plaintiff adduced in evidence an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1873. This records that there is a right of pre-emption first with own brothers and nephews, then with ciusins who are co-sharers, then with co-sharers in the patti and then with co-sharers in the village. At that time the village consisted of one mahal, which was sub-divided jnto two path's. We may point out here that the Court below has made a very important mistake. It states that the village was then divided into two mahnls. The other evidence in support of the existence of the custom consisted of the wajib-ul-arz which was framed at the last Settlement. By this time the village had been divided into a number of different mahals and at the time of the Settlement a new w...
Tag this Judgment!Sabodra Bibi Vs. Bageshwari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All529
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Portion of the property was situate in one mahal and portion in another. The plaintiff claimed preemption of the whole of the property in Harballampur but only a portion of the property in Mirganj. He said that the vendor was only entitled to a much smaller share in Mirganj than that which he purported to sell. He added to his plaint a, statement that if the court found that the vendor was really entitled to all the property in Mirganj which he purported to sell, then he was willing to pre-empt that also. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he did not seek preemption of the entire property. In our opinion this decision was correct. A pre-emptor is not entitled in a pre-emption suit to put the vendor on proof of his title to the property which he purports to sell. The principle of pre-emption is substitution. A pre-emptor is, therefore, bound to take the titl...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal Vs. Damodar Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All567
Chamier and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal and the connected appeals Nos. 246, 263, 264 and 359 of 1914 arise out of proceedings taken by Birj Lal, one of the parties to the case of Birj Lal v. Inda Kunwar in connection with the order of His Majesty in Council in that case. As the report shows, there were two suits, of which one (No. 62 of 1907) was brought by Inda Kunwar for possession of a ten his was share in a village, and the other (No. 63 of 1907) was brought by Het Ram and others for possession of the other 10 his was share in the village. The court of first instance in suit No. 62 gave Inda Kunwar a decree for a two biswas share on certain terms and dismissed her claim for the remaining 8 biswas. Suit No. 63 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. On appeal this Court passed decrees in favour of the plaintiffs in both suits. Birj Lal, a defendant in both suits, appealed to His Majesty in Council. The two appeals were consolidated in an order by His Majesty in Council, dated the 9th...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Das and ors. Vs. Birj Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All434; 30Ind.Cas.77
1. This appeal and the connected Appeals Nos. 246, 263, 264 and 359 of 1914 arise out of proceedings taken by Birj Lal, one of the parties to the case of Birj Lal v. Musammat Inda Kunwar 23 Ind. Cas. 715 : 36 A. 187 : 26 M.L.J. 443 : 18 C.W.N. 649 : 12 A.L.J. 495 : 19 C.L.J. 469 : (1914) M.W.N. 405 : 15 M.L.T. 395 : 16 Bom. L.R. 352 1 L.W. 794 in connection with the order of His Majesty in Council in that case. As the report shows, there were two suits of which one (No. 62 of 1907) was brought by Inda Kuar for possession of a 10-biswas share in a village and the other (No. 63 of 1907) was brought by Het Ram and others for possession of the other 10 Biswas share in the village. The Court of first instance in Suit No. 62 gave Inda Kuar a decree for a 2-biswas share on certain terms and dismissed her claim for the remaining 8 biswas. Suit No. 63 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. On appeal this Court passed decrees in favour of the plaintiffs in both suits. Birj Lal, a defendant in b...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rafi Khan and ors. Vs. Maula Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All320; (1915)ILR37All527; 29Ind.Cas.479
1. This is an appeal by the representatives of one Ali Bakhsh Khan deceased, who obtained a decree on July 10th, 1906, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh dismissing the appellants' application for execution on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The decree as already stated was passed on July 10th, 1906. The first application for execution was made in September 1909 and was struck off after the decree had been partly satisfied. The second application for execution was made on August 24th, 1910, and was ultimately struck off on March 24th, 1911. For the purposes of this appeal it may be assumed that the application of August 24th, 1910 was ah application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution of the decree. The third application for execution was made on August 23rd, 1912, and was struck off on September 6th, 1913, the decree-holder having failed to comply with the order of the Court requiring him to make certain amendments in the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Audh Bihari Pande Vs. Jadubans Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All319; 29Ind.Cas.485
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the same thole as the vendor. The defendants-vendees are co-sharers tut in a different thok. The plaintiff adduced in evidence an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1833 and from that of 1860 and 1869. The wajib-ul-arz of 1833 records the mere fact that the co-sharers have a right of pre-emption. The wajib-ul-arz of 1860 records that there is a right of pre-emption and that the near co-sharer has a right, and after him the co-sharer in the thok, and after him co-sharers in other thoks. The wajib-ul-arz of 1869, in our opinion, is identical with the entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1860, though inslightly different language. It is to be pointed out that both sides admit that some custom of pre-emption prevails, in the village. The only question is whether it is an incident of the custom that the plaintiff as a co-sharer in the same thok as the vendor has a preferential right over the vendee who is a co-sharer...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »