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.
Najaf Khan and ors. Vs. Girdharia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All218; 32Ind.Cas.593
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff mortgagee in respect of a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding granted on the 1st of October 1901. On some date in 1904 the mortgagee obtained possession. It is agreed that from that date this transaction is governed by the provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1901. In April 1910 the mortgagee was dispossessed by the mortgagor and he now brings this suit for possession. Both Courts have decided against him, upon the ground that the mortgage transaction under which he claims to take possession is, by the Act which now governs it, invalid. The point argued on behalf of the appellant is that the mortgagee having once recovered possession, if he is dispossessed by the mortgagor without being paid off, can notwithstanding the invalidity of the transaction again recover possession. The fallacy in that argument appears to me to be that in a suit for possession he is still asserting a transaction which is invalid. My attention was drawn to a de...
Muhammad Siddiq Vs. Mahmud-un-nissa-bibi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.334
Henry Richards, C.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 Wall by Musammat Bashir-un-nissa. The third sale was made on the 11th of October 1913 in favour of the plaintiff Muhammad Siddiq by Abdul Wali and others. The fourth sale was of the 18th of January 1914 in favour of Mahmud-un-nissa and Abdul Wali by Azmatullah. All four sales were of shares in the same mahal in which none of the vendees were previously co-sharers, The first person to institute a suit was Musammat Mahmud-un-nissa and Abdul Wali, who sought...
Musammat Lakhrani Kuar Vs. Dhanraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.634
Walsh, J.1. This appeal raises at least one very interesting question of law about which I feel considerable doubt, but I do not think I should gain anything by taking time to consider my judgment. I am glad to think that my decision can be reviewed, if so desired, under the Letters Patent.2. The action is brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain property which belonged to her husband as a separated Hindu. Her husband died in 1904. She brought a suit for possession against the defendant in 1907 and succeeded in the first Court. That judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Court in November 1907. The defence had been that the land had been given orally to the defendant by the plaintiff's husband. That defence failed. It was also alleged that the defendant had been in continuous possession since 1895, but of course that would have given the defendant no right in itself. The judgment of the Appellate Court was appealable to the High Court but was not appealed against. That is a d...
Dhaunkal Singh Vs. Naubat Rai, Sheoraj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All184
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged contract is dated the 24th of December, 1910. It was for the sale of a village called Binpur Khurd for the price of Rs. 21,000. As part of the consideration the purchaser was to be entitled to set off the amount due for principal and interest upon a certain promissory note, dated the 15th of December, 1910. It appears that the village had already been sold in execution of a decree against the vendors, and the sale was conditional upon this auction sale being set aside. The auction sale, we may here mention, was subsequently set aside under a compromise. In the court below defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that there was no real intention ever to sell the property to the plaintiff, but that the document (which admittedly was executed) was merely for the purpose of strengthening...
Najm-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Amina Bibi and ors
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR38All188
Henry Richards, C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the suit in the court below was under Rs. 10,000 and the value of the proposed appeal is also under Rs. 10,000. This Court did not affirm the decree of the court of first instance. It is still, however, necessary to consider whether or not the case in a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The case is reported in I.L.R. 37 All. 254. The question of law involved is as to the legal position of a person who has collected the debts of a deceased person by virtue of his being the holder of a succession certificate granted under the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act, Act VII of 1889. This Court hold that a suit by one of the persona entitled to a portion of the estate was barred by limitation, applying article 02 of the Limitation Act. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the holder of a succession certificate to collect the debts is ...
Naubat Rai and ors. Vs. Thakur Dhaunkal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.953
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged contract is dated the 24th of December 1910. It was for the sale of a village called Bimpur Khurd for the price of Rs. 21,000. As part of the consideration the purchaser was to be entitled to set off the amount due for principal and interest upon a certain promissory note, dated the 15th of December 1910. It appears that the village had already been sold in execution of a decree against the vendors and the sale was conditional upon this auction sale being set aside. The auction-sale, we may here mention, was subsequently set aside under a Compromise. In the Court below defendants Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that there was no real intention ever to sell the property to the plaintiff, but that the transaction between them (which admittedly was executed) was merely for the purpose of strengthening the application to set aside ...
Najm-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Amina Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1916
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.345
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the suit in the Court below was under Rs. 10,000 and the value of the proposed appeal is also under Rs. 10,000. This Court did not affirm the decree of the Court of first instance. It is still, however, necessary to consider whether or not the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The case is reported as Amina Bibi v. Najmunnissa Bibi 27 Ind. Cas. 712 : 13 A.L.J. 255 : 37 A. 233. The question of law involved is as to the legal position of a person who has collected the debts of a deceased person by virtue of his being the holder of a Succession Certificate granted under the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act, VII of 1889. This Court held that a suit by one of the persons entitled to a portion of the estate was barred by limitation, applying Article 62 of the Limitation Act. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the holder of a Succession Certificate to collect the...
Girdhari Chaube and ors. Vs. Ram Baran Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All358; 32Ind.Cas.761
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur giving judgment for the defendant in the suit and reversing the decision of the Munsif who had granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The action was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of certain property. At the date of the last Settlement, the defendant's predecessors-in-title had been recorded in the revenue papers. In 1887 the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-title brought a similar suit to the present against the defendant's predecessors-in-title. In that suit they succeeded, and, it is alleged, obtained possession as the result of the decree in their favour. Inasmuch as they were in possession they did not take the trouble to apply for an alteration in the revenue entries, which, therefore, remained uncorrected. In 1912 disputes having arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendant, as they had arisen between the plaintiffs' predecessors a...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All312; (1916)ILR38All182; 33Ind.Cas.632
Henry Richards, C.J., Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an application by a pleader whose certificate the learned District Judge of Meerut refused to renew in December last. It appears that the gentleman in question instituted two suits for pre-emption based on Muhammadan law. The court of first instance decided in his favour and grunted him a decree. On appeal before the learned District Judge the decision of the Munsif was reversed after the plaintiff (who is the present applicant) had been recalled as a witness and examined. The right of the plaintiff to pre-empt the property, provided he observed the requirements of the Muhammadan law, docs not seem to have been disputed. The learned District Judge having dismissed the suits took action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that proceedings have been instituted against the applicant under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, a section which makes it a criminal offence for a person to make in ...
iqbal HusaIn Vs. Wilayat Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916All318; 32Ind.Cas.685
George Knox, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad had before him a paper purporting to be a petition from one Wilayat Husain, prisoner in Jail. It was apparently presented through Mr. Kedar Nath, Barrister-at-Law. It purported to be an application asking for sanction to prosecute Sub-Inspector of Police by name Iqbal Husain for offences said to have been committed under Sections 193, 211, 465, 471, etc., Indian Penal Code. It must have been known to the learned Judge that Wilayat Husain was a man at the time in Jail and a person who had several times been previously prosecuted and convicted of offences against the Indian Penal Code. The person aimed at in the application was a Sub-Inspector of Police. If ever there was a case in which the discretionary power to give sanction should have been most carefully considered, this was such a case. This Court has on several occasions pointed out that an application for sanction when made under Section 1 95, Criminal Procedure Code, must...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »