Allahabad Court January 1916 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.
Lakhmi Ram JaIn and anr. Vs. Hari Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All380
Tudball and Piggott, JJ.1. These two appeals arise out of an application under paragraph 20 of the second schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. They are heard together and this Judgment will cover both appeals. The parties to this proceeding are a son of Gulab Ram lani, eight grandsons of the same and the widow of a deceased son, Santosh Ram Jani. Disputes arose in the family and the members agreed to partition the property by means of arbitration. At the time of the first submission to arbitration in October, 1911, Adit Ram Jani, one of the sons of Gulab Ram Jani, was alive. An agreement was drawn up on the 11th of October, 1911, and signed by all. It set forth what the parties desired the arbitrators to do and the powers given. Three persons were appointed.2. Before the latter were able to do anything, Adit Ram Jani and one of the arbitrators died. Therefore a fresh agreement was executed submitting the matter to the decision of the two remaining arbitrators. Then one of these ref...
Hari Kunwar Vs. Lakhmi Ram Jani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.833
1. These two appeals arise out of an application under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure. They are heard together and this judgment will cover both appeals. The parties to this proceeding are one son of Gulab Ram Jani, eight grandsons of the same and the widow of a deceased son, Santokh Ram Jani. Disputes arose in the family and the members agreed to partition the property by means of arbitration. At the time of the first submission to arbitration in October 1911, Adit Ram Jani, one of the sons of Gulab Ram Jani, was alive An agreement was drawn up on 11th October 1911 and siirned by all. It set forth what the parties desired the arbitrators to do and the powers given. Three persons were appointed.2. Before the latter were able to do anything, Adit Ram Jani and one of the arbitrators died. Therefore, a fresh agreement was executed submitting the matter to the decision of the two remaining arbitrators. Then one of these refused to act and so a third agre...
Mustafa Begam and ors. Vs. Musammat Siraj-ul-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.693
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This appeal is wholly without merit. In a suit brought for partition the parties entered into a compromise and a decree was made in accordance with the compromise. One of the terms of the compromise, which according to the decretal order formed part of the decree, was that Rs. 1,500 should be paid in four years in instalments of Rs. 200 every half year, namely, at the time of the rabi harvest and at the time of the Kharif harvest. Instalments not having been paid the present application for execution was made. The judgment-debtors contend that the remedy of the decree-holders was to bring a separate suit and not to execute the decree. As I have already said, the decree embodies the terms of the compromise and the compromise provides that the judgment-debtors should pay Rs. 1,500 by instalments as stated above. Therefore, under the terms of the decree the decree-holders are entitled to recover the amount decreed by executing the decree. It is next urged that as the de...
Sakhawat Ali Vs. Suraj Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All238; 33Ind.Cas.343
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent of a certain plot of land. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance but has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The first contention put forward on behalf of the plaintiff appellant is that the lower Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Under Section 177 of the Agra Tenancy Act an appeal lies to the District Judge in all suits in which a question of proprietary title has been in issue in the Court of first instance and is a matter in issue in the appeal. I have, therefore, to consider whether a question of proprietary title was raised and was in issue in the Court of first instance and was also in issue in the appeal. In his written statement the defendant distinctly said in paragraph 8 that 'the land in dispute is not the zemindari property of the plaintiffs, nor was it ever in their possession as zemindars. They have no proprietary title thereto.' In the 9th paragraph he said, 'the def...
Maqbul Ahmad Vs. Murla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.546
Walsh, J.1. This appeal, which is brought from a decree of the Second Additional Judge of Aligarh holding that the appeal to him was time-barred, must be allowed. I propose to state the consideration which, I think, ought to apply to an appeal which is time-barred when an application is made to admit the appeal in spite of the bar. In this case a decree was made by an Assistant Collector dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the 16th of June 1913. The plaintiff, who appears to have thought or to have been advised that his right of appeal lay to the Commissioner, had seventy-two days for appealing to the Commissioner. He appealed on the sixty-third day. The Commissioner held that the appeal was to the wrong Court and ordered the memorandum of appeal to be returned. Such order was made on the 3rd of November. After a delay of eighteen days, only nine of which are attributed to the appellant in the judgment of the learned Judge, the appellant appealed to the Judge namely, on the 21st of Nove...
Muhammad Khalil Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All254; (1916)ILR38All201; 33Ind.Cas.349
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption based on Muhammadan law. The second demand (talab-i-ishtishhad) was made by letter. The lower appellate court has held that this was not a compliance with the Muhammadan law, and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On the facts as found there was no reason why the plaintiff should not have made the second demand in person. It is urged, however, in appeal hero that under the Muhammadan law as properly understood the pre-emptor has an option and he is entitled, if so he pleases, to make his second demand by letter. In support of this proposition certain learned authors on Muhammadan law have been cited including Baillie, MacNaughten and Ameer Ali. All these authors touch on the question as to how the second demand may be made. But their views are all based upon a text from Fatwa Alamgiri and must be read therewith. This has been translated for us and no exception is taken to the translation. It is as ...
Sheorani and anr. Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All304; 33Ind.Cas.625
George Knox, J.1. The proceedings in this case were sent for by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore. It is not very easy to understand how the learned Sessions Judge sent for these proceedings. Possibly his attention was never called to Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai 26 A. 144 : 1 Cr. L.J. 339. Any how he did send for them, and several hours have been spent in this Court in trying to show that the Magistrate's order was an order passed without jurisdiction. No attempt has been made to challenge the case as being without jurisdiction up to and inclusive of the order passed on the 30th of September and recorded by the learned Magistrate in English. The learned Counsel who appeared in support of the learned Judge's order had to admit, and rightly to admit, that up to that point at any rate the proceedings were proceedings under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate proceeded up to that point with very great care and deliberation. After he had passed his Englis...
Bisheshar Ahir Vs. Dukharan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All344; (1916)ILR38All197
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal relates to a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a half share in an occupancy holding. The facts are very simple and are undisputed. Katwaru was the tenant of the occupancy holding. He died many years ago before the Agra Tenancy Act came into force, leaving two daughters, Musammat Dilasi and Musammat Sumitra. Musammat Dilasi died about 14 years before the suit was instituted, leaving her surviving, her sister Musammat Sumitra, who died on the 11th of September, 1913. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Musammat Dilasi and the defendant is the son of Musammat Sumitra. It is admitted that on the death of Katwaru his two daughters became entitled to possession of the property as Hindu females. According to the provisions of the Rent Act of 1881 an occupancy holding, subject to certain qualifications, descended 'as land.' It is admitted that if the Agra Tenancy Act had never been passed, the plaintiff No. 1 would he entitled to succe...
Bisheshar Ahir Vs. Dukhran Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.771
1. This appeal relates to a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a half share in an occupancy holding. The facts are very simple and undisputed. Katwaru was the tenant of the occupancy holding. He died many years ago before the Agra Tenancy Act came into force, leaving two daughters Musammat Dilasi and Musammat Sumitra. Musammat Dilasi died about 14 years before the suit was instituted, leaving her surviving her sister Musammat Sumitra who died on the 11th of September 1913. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Musammat Dilasi and the defendant is the son of Musammat Sumitra. It is admitted that on the death of Katwaru his two daughters became entitled to possession of the property as Hindu females. According to the provisions of the Rent Act of 1881 an occupancy holding (subject to certain qualifications) descended 'as land'. It is admitted that if the Agra Tenancy Act had never been passed, the plaintiff No. 1 would be entitled to succeed in the present suit. Section 22 of the ...
Muhammad Siddiq Vs. Mahmud-un-nissa Bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All246; (1916)ILR38All191
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal is connected with Second Appeal No. 239 of 1915. The appeals arise out of suits for pre-emption. Having regard to certain matters which transpired during the litigation, it is necessary to set out the facts at some length. It appears that there were four sales. The first sale was made on the 6th of January, 1913. This was a sale in favour of Muhammad Siddiq (the appellant). The vendor was Musammat Abdul-un-nissa. The second sale was made on the 16th of March, 1913, in favour of Mahmud-un-nissa and Abdul-Wali by Musammat Bashir-un-niasa. The third sale was made on the 11th of October, 1913, in favour of the plaintiff Muhammad Siddiq by Abdul Wall and others. The fourth sale was of the 18th of January, 1914, in favour of Mahmud-un-niasa and Abdul Wali by Azmatullah. All four sales wore of shares in the same mahal in which none of the vendees wore previously co-sharers. The first persons to institute a suit were Musammat Mahmud-un-nissa a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »