Allahabad Court May 1915 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.
Musammat Sahodra Bibi Vs. Bageshri Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All154; 29Ind.Cas.1000
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 pre-emption of the whole of the property in Harballampur but only 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 dismiaseil the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he did not seek pre-emption 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 preemption's substitution. A pre-emptor is, therefore, bound to take the title which the vendee was ready to take. ...
Marram Khan and anr. Vs. Sakhawat Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All142; 29Ind.Cas.554
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs alleged that the transaction between the defendants was in reality a usufructuary mortgage dressed up in the guise of a simple mortgage, so as to defeat their right of pre-emption. They went on further to say that even if the Court found that the transaction was a simple mortgage, they had a right to be substituted in the mortgage. The lower Appellate Court has found as a matter of fact that the transaction was a simple mortgage, and this finding is binding upon us in second appeal.2. It is contended, however, on behalf of the appellants that even on this finding the plaintiffs are entitled to pre-empt the mortgage. We shall assume for the purposes of the present appeal that some right of pre-emption does exist. We shall also assume that this right of pre-emption extends to the case of a usufructuary mortgage. The question remains, have the plaintiffs satisfactorily' proved the existence of a custom applying to the cas...
Bishambhar Nath and ors. Vs. B. Jagan Nath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All249; 29Ind.Cas.695
1. The facts of this case are these: The father of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was the owner of an enclosure, on one side of which there was a temple. The enclosure was sold by auction in execution of a decree and was purchased by the defendants. There was some litigation between the parties as regards the portion of the building known as the temple. In that litigation the defendants failed. It is alleged that the defendants have now practically closed, by staking bricks, three doors appertaining to the house, and have stopped the flow of water through a drain which had existed for a number of years. The present suit was accordingly brought for removal of the obstruction to the three doors and for restoration of the drain and for an injunction. It was alleged that the door C, marked on the plan filed with the plaint, was used as a passage and that fjhe doors A and B were used principally for light and air. The Courts below decreed the claim. Upon appeal this decree was set aside and...
Shadi Vs. Nathu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All522
Henary Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The pre-emption claim was based on Muhammadan Law. Both the courts below have decreed the claim and the defendant vendee comes here in second appeal. The vendor is the husband of the vendee and the property was sold to the lady in lieu of her dower debt. The plea taken before us is that the preliminary demands were not properly satisfied and, therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. The facts are that at the time when the sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiff pre-emptor the vendee was present and witnesses also were present. The plaintiff at once claimed his right of pre-emption invoking][the witnesses. It is urged that the two demands ought to have been made separately, one immediately after the other, that practically only one demand was made and that does not satisfy the requirements of Muhammadan Law. The authorities are against the appellants as Mr. Amir Ali i...
Baru Mal and ors. Vs. Tansukh Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All289; (1915)ILR37All524
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer. The vendee is a stranger. The plaintiff adduced in evidence in support of the existence of the alleged custom, an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1867. No earlier wajib-ul-arz was produced. He also adduced in evidence two decrees, one based on compromise and the other a decree in which the question of a custom was not decided. There was some oral evidence but on cross-examination these witnesses had to admit that there had been sales to strangers and no pre-emption claimed. Lastly he produced an extract from the wajib-ul-arz for the current settlement which refers to the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 for the customs which were not specified in the document itself.2. The entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 no doubt refers to a right of pre-emption. In the very same clause, however, there are references to a number of other matters which it is extremely improbable, were existing cu...
Musammat Nathu and ors. Vs. Shadi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All394; 29Ind.Cas.495
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The pre-emptor's claim was based on Muhammadan Law. Both the Courts below have, decreed the claim and the defendant-vendee comes here in second appeal. The vendor is the husband of the vendee and the property was sold to the lady in lieu of her dower-debt. The plea taken before us is that the preliminary demands were not properly satisfied and, therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed. The facts are that at the time when the sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, the vendee was present and witnesses also were present. The plaintiff at once claimed his right of pre-emption invoking the witnesses. It is urged that the two demands ought to have been made separately, one immediately after the other, that practically only oae demand was made and that does not satisfy the requirements of Muhammadan Law. The authorities are against the appellant; as Mr. Justice Ameer Ali in his book points out, if ...
Lala Baru Mal and ors. Vs. Tansukh Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.1001
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff is a co-sharer. The vendee is a stranger. The plaintiff adduced in evidence in support of the existence of the alleged custom an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1867. No earlier wajib-ul-arz was produced. He also adduced in evidence two decrees, one based on a compromise and the other a decree in which the question of custom was not decided. There were some oral evidence but on cross-examination these witnesses had to admit that there had been sales to strangers and no pre emption claimed. Lastly he produced an extract from the wajib-ul-arz for the current Settlement, which refers to the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 for the 'customs' which were not specified iu the document itself. The entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 no doubt refers to a righ of pre-emption. In the very same clause, however, there are references, to a number of other matters which it is extremely improbable were existing customs. In fact the wajib-ul-arz app...
Emperor Vs. Har Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All471
Chamier, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge of an offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each. At the same trial Chhote alias Bhawani was convicted of the same offence and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment. Chhote has not appealed. The two appellants in the first instance presented their appeals to the court of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. That officer forwarded the appeals to this Court on the ground that under Section 408, proviso (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure none of the convicts could appeal to the Court of Session. The question has been raised in more than one case of this kind whether an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding four years lies to the High Court by reason of the fact that another person convicted at the same trial was sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding four years. Both Mr. Justice Tudball and Mr. Justice Pog...
Madho Sonar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All442; 30Ind.Cas.141
Piggott, J.1. The conviction in this case has been had under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. It lay on the prosecution to prove that the public servants assaulted, namely, the Police constables Nazir Husain and Darsan Singh, were in the execution, or in the lawful discharge of their duty as such public servants at the time when the assault was committed.' They were endeavouring to search the house of the applicant Madho Sonar. Not only is it not proved by the evidence on the record that the provisions of Section 166, road with Clause (3), Section 165, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been complied with, but, as a matter of fact, a breach of those provisions becomes patent on an examination of the evidence given by Sub-Inspector Taj Dat Pande and constable Darsan Singh. The Sub-Inspector seems to have acted under a belief, and probably quite a bona fide belief, that it was sufficient compliance with the law if he sent intimation to the Sub-Inspector of Manda Police Station o...
Har Dayal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All356; 30Ind.Cas.158
Chamier, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge of an offence under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment each. At the same trial Chhote alias Bhawani was convicted of the same offence and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment. Chhole has not appealed. The two appellants in the first instance presented their appeals to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, The officer forwarded the appeals to this Court on the ground that under Section 408, proviso (b), of the Code of Criminal Procedure none of the convicts could appeal to the Court of Session. The question has been raised in more than one case of this kind, whether an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding four years lies to the High Court by reason of the fact that another person convicted at the same trial was sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding four years. Both Mr. Justice Tudball and Mr. Justice Pi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »