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.
Abdul Razaq and ors. Vs. Zamir Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All472
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption in respect of a certain zamindari situate in the village of Katra. Originally this village consisted of two mahals, one of 113/4 biswas and one of 81/4 biswas. The 81/4 biswas mahal was subsequently divided into two mahals, one of 31/4 biswas and one of 5 biswas. The 5 biswas mahal (which is now a 20 biswa mahal), belonged, one-half to the vendors and one-half to the pre-emptors. The vendors have sold their half share to a stranger. The pre-emptors brought their suit to enforce their right, alleging (a) in paragraph three of their plaint that the 'custom of pre-emption prevailed among proprietors of the khalsa' as entered in the wajib-ul-arz of the village and also (6)(as set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint) that directly he 'got the news of the sale he fulfilled the conditions required by the Mohammadan Law for pre-emption' and called upon the defendant to transfer the pre-empted property to...
Munna Lal Vs. Kalika Bakhsh Sing Ans ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All292; 29Ind.Cas.425
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff has been found to be an ekjaddi co-sharer with the vendor. We may assume, (although it was not admitted in the Court below) that the defendant-vendee is a co-sharer in the mahal but not ekjaddi. The defendant pleaded, amongst other pleas' that the right of pre-emption only arose in the case of a sale to a stranger and that in any event the sale had taken place after the plaintiff had refused to purchase. The Court below has decided against the defendant, hence the present appeal.2. In the entry in the wajib-ul-arz a number of words are left to be understood. The meaning, however, seems to be pretty clear. It may be literally translated as follows:3. 'The right of purchase at the price which a stranger may give shall be prior (in favour of) the ek-jaddi co-sharer, after that with the co-sharers in the mahal, after they refuse the property may be sold to a stranger.' The only reason for holding that this limits the right ...
Ram Harakh Pathak and ors. Vs. Ram Saran Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All165; 29Ind.Cas.408
George Knox, J.1. The plaintiffs, now respondents, sued on a bond. The defendants pleaded paymect. The matter in dispute was referred to arbitration; the arbitrator decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Objections were taken by both parties. The lower Court, after considering the objections, dismissed them and drew up a decree in terms of the award. From that decree an appeal was filed to the Court of the Additional Judge. The Additional Judge accepted the appeal and on the 16th of August 1912 entertained an application signed by one of the plaintiffs and the Vakil engaged for both plaintiffs on the one side, and by the defendant Ram Harakh and a Pleader who appeared for both defendants on the othr. The application was to the effect that Hbth parties agreed that the appeal should be accepted (manzur) and that the case should be decided on the merits. The Additional Judge ordered that the appeal is accepted and the case be decide on the merits. Some evidence was taken and the case remain...
Musammat Manohri Vs. Bhura
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.565
George Knox, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in the Court of an Assistant Collector. The suit as laid was for the ejectment of one Bhura. The Court of first instance passqd an order for ejectment. Bhura appealed from the decree to the Court of the District Judge of Saharanpur. The allegation of the plaintiff was to the effect that the defendant was in possession of the land in dispute without the consent of the plaintiff and without the payment of any ren4-, and the defendant on the other hand raised the plea that he was in proprietary and adverse possession of the land. This issue apparently was never tried. The District Judge held that the suit did not liaoinder the Tenancy Act, as the Revenue Courts had no power to eject a trespasser. The learned Judge admitted in his judgment that he was bound by a ruling of this Court in Balli v. Naubat Singh 16 Ind. Cas. 120 : 9 A.L.J. 771 but he has preferred to follow what he himself calls an obiter dictum in Nandan...
Bharat Duaj Damodar Das Vs. Mahabbat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All304; 29Ind.Cas.421
George Knox, J.1. The plaint in this case sets out that certain land is held by the defendants as a muafi grant from the zemindar. The plaintiff says that he is no longer willing to allow the land to remain rent-free, and he asks that a decree be passed for recovery of the muafi land. The plaint was instituted, as the description shows, in the Court of the Record Officer, District Etawah. The Record Officer heard the case and passed orders for resumption of the land and the ejectment of the defendants. The defendants went into appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Etawah. That officer held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the grant was a resumable grant at the pleasure of the grantor; further, that the defendants had acquired proprietary rights therein.2. The plaintiff comes in appeal here and says that no appeal lay to the District Judge from the order of the Record Officer. This plea appears to be a good plea and must prevail. The appeal is decreed, but the...
Zamir Ahmad and anr. Vs. Abdul Razak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All260; 29Ind.Cas.993
1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption in respect of a certain zemindari situate in the village of Katra. Originally this village consisted of two mahals, one of 11 3/4 biswas and one 8 1/4 biswas. The 8 1/4 biswas mahal was subsequently divided into two mahah, one of 3 1/4 biswas and one of 5 biswas. The 5 biswas mahal (which is now a 20 biswas mahal) belonged one-half to the vendors and one-half to the pre-emptors. The vendors have sold their half share to a stranger. The pre-emptors brought their suit to enforce their right, alleging (a) in paragraph 3 of their plaint, that the 'custom of pre-emption prevailed among proprietors of the khalsa' as entered in the wajib-ul-arz of the village and also (b) (as set out in paragraph 6 of the plaint) that directly he 'got the news of the sale he fulfilled the conditions by the Muhammadan Law for pre emption' and called upon the defendant to transfer the pre-empted property to him for the price entered in the sale-deed. Th...
Ajodhya Pershad and ors. Vs. Musammat Chhabila Koer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.1004
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendants in a certain suit against an order passed by the Munsif of Fatehpur, whereby a previous order of the same Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for non-appearance was set aside. The suit had originally been filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, but the plaint was returned with directions that it be filed in the Court of the Munsif of Fatehpur. It was dismissed for default of plaintiff's appearance on the 11th January 1915. An application for re-hearing was made on the 27th January 1915. A notice having gone to the defendants the question came up for orders on the 20th February 1915. It was then pointed out to the Munsif that the plaintiff's application for re-admission of his suit had been presented by one Rameshar under a special power-of-attorney. That power-of-attorney being examined, it appeared that it was so worded as to authorize Rameshar to present the plaint and to do all acts that might be necessary for...
Makhdum Bakhsh and ors. Vs. Shaukat Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All241; 29Ind.Cas.1008
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit before the Court of Small Causes at Allahabad. The claim was on a promissory note which, as brought into Court, purported to be dated November the 28th, 1911. The defendants alleged that the real date was the 28th of November 1910 and that the last figure of the year had been dishonestly altered in order to bring the suit within limitation. They also pleaded payment in full. The learned Judge of the Court below observed that from the appearance of the paper it did seem as if the last figure of the date at the foot of the pro-note in suit had been originally written as a cipher and changed to the figure 1. He came to no finding as to whether this had been done dishonestly, or indeed as to whether it had been done after the execution of the note or as to the date on which the note was actually executed. He held it proved that there had been a payment on account of interest made one year subsequant to the execution of the note, so that the suit was within tim...
Harani Vs. Ram Nath,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All467
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage, dated the 18th of February, 1892. Ram Nath, the appellant, is one of the original mortgagees. He contends that the plaintiff' has no right to maintain the suit. It appears that after the date of the mortgage the mortgagors sold their equity of redemption to one Jagan Nath Ahir. Ram Nath Kayastha (to whom we shall hereafter refer as 'the pre-emptor') brought a suit for pre-emption against Jagan Nath Ahir, and obtained a decree which became final. When Ram Nath, the pre-emptor, applied to have his name recorded, the Collector under the provisions of Act II of 1903, made an order in November, 1910, refusing to sanction the permanent alienation in favour of the pre-emptor. By a later order he pointed out that all that he could do for ' the pre-emptor was to make him a usufructuary mortgagee for twenty years under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. But seeing that there was already a usufruct...
Ram Nath Vs. Harain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.404
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage, dated the 18th of February 1892. Ram Nath, the appellant, is one of the original mortgagees. He contends that the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit. It appears that after the date of the mortgage the mortgagors sold their equity of redemption to one Jagan Nath Ahir. Ram Nath Kayastha (to whom we shall hereafter refer as 'the pre-emptor') brought a suit for pre-emption against Jagan Nath Ahir, and obtained a decree which became final. When Ram Nath, the pre-emptor, applied to have his name recorded the Collector under the provisions of Act II of 1903 made an order in November 1910 refusing to sanction the permanent alienation in favour of the pre-emptor. By a later order he pointed out that all that he could do for the pre-emptor was to make him a usufructuary mortgagee for twenty years under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. But seeing that there was already a usufructuary mortgagee in possession, he pointed out...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »