Allahabad Court April 1917 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.
Mahabir Singh Vs. Suba Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All544
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The facts are that as far back as the 3rd of June, 1909, there was a mortgage by way of conditional sale. The decree absolute was made on the 13th of June, 1914. Possession was given on the 26th of February, 1915. The present suit was instituted on the 5th of October, 1915. The plaintiff alleged his cause of action to have arisen, not at the date of the original transfer, but on the date at which possession was given under the decree absolute. The custom as proved by the entry in the wajib-ul-arz refers to transfers (intiqal) and provides that, the first offer must be made as therein set forth. There is no reference in the entry to any right of pre-emption upon the order of the court for making a decree absolute or granting possession. The question in the court below was when did the plaintiff's cause of action, if any, arise. The court of first instance held that the cause of action, if any, arose...
Ali Asghar Vs. the Collector of Bulandshahr and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All381; (1917)ILR39All574
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the appellant for possession of a half share of the village Wair Badshahpur in the district of Bulandshahr, which has been granted to his father Asghar Ali, by the British Government for services rendered during the Mutiny of 1857. Asghar Ali was originally a resident of the town of Palwal in the Gurgaon district, now appertaining to the Punjab. He held various appointments, and finally became Tahsildar of Azamgarh, when he rendered the good service for which he obtained the village of Wair Badshahpur. He died in 1876, leaving him surviving two widows, Moti Begam and Sakina Begam, a son, Ali Asghar, the present plaintiff, and two daughters, Sughra Begam and Saira Begam. The children were the issue of his marriage with Moti Begam. At the time of his death the son Ali Asghar was very young. Saira Begam is dead and her heirs are defendants to the suit, so also is Sughra Begam. In 1892, the widows appl...
Mahabali Vs. Sahdeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All180(1); 40Ind.Cas.73
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to be put into possession of certain property which had been usufructuarily mortgaged to the respondents. It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the existence of some custom. He had to prove a custom which gave him a right to be substituted for the mortgagee. The lower Appellate Court has found that he has not established the existence of such a custom. We find that there was an entry in respect of preemption the wajib-ul-arz of 1840. This recorded a right in the case of mortgage to lambardars and to co-sharers. The entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1882 is of a totally different nature. In the first place it does not refer to mortgages at all. Lambardars are dropped out altogether and the right is given to an own brother (apparently irrespective of whether he is a co-sharer or not) and then to near relations, then to co-sharers in the same lambardari, and then to other co-sharers. We think that the Court below was justi...
Rajendra Prasad Vs. Ram Jatan Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All290(2); (1917)ILR39All539; 39Ind.Cas.785
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought the ordinary mortgage decree in respect of a certain fixed-rate tenancy. The mortgage was made as far back as the 27th of December, 1900. Various pleas were raised in the court of first instance. The execution of the mortgage was denied; the consideration was denied and legal necessity for the loan was also denied. Amongst the pleas was a plea to the effect that the entire mortgage was bad, inasmuch as the mortgage-deed comprised not only a fixed-rate tenancy but also an occupancy holding. The court of first instance decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his suit. In first appeal the learned District Judge reversed the decree of the court of first instance upon the sole ground that the mortgage was bad, because, in addition to the fixed-rate tenancy, an occupancy holding was also included. The plaintiff does not in the present suit claim to sell the occupancy holding.2. The onl...
ishar DIn and anr. Vs. Mumtaz HusaIn Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.974
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The plaintiffs who were zemindars of a village brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the removal of certain trees which the defendants bad planted in a grove held by them as grove-holders. The plaintiffs relied upon the terms of the wajib-ul-arz of the village and contended that the defendants were not entitled to plant new trees. The defendants on the other hand urged that they had only replaced trees which had been cut down by them and that they were entitled to do so. The Court of First Instance decided in favour of the defendants. On appeal the, learned Judge held a different opinion and decreed the claim. The case turns upon the interpretation of the wajib-ul-arz. Chapter IV of that document relates to the rights of cultivators and paragraph 5 relates to groves of cultivators and persons who are not proprietors of land. In this paragraph it is provided that proprietors of groves have a right to sell the fruits and cut down the trees in their g...
Thakur Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All345; 39Ind.Cas.1002
Tudball, J.1. This application in revision has arisen out of the following circumstances. On the 1st of November 1916 one Daryao Singh presented a petition to Mr. Dampier, who is the District Magistrate and Collector of the Muttra District, making certain general allegations against the Tahsildar of Mat. Mr. Dampier questioned the petitioner and in the course of the latter's statement he alleged that he had heard that bribes had been taken by the Tahsildar from four persons. The District Magistrate sent the petition to a Junior Magistrate, Mr. Mehta, for local enquiry. This Magistrate went to Mat and questioned Daryao Singh, who stated that he really had no complaint to make but that he had been instigated by certain other persons to make a false complaint. It may be noted that subsequently he withdrew from this position and submitted several petitions to various officers of Various degrees insisting upon full and proper enquiry but with these I am not concerned. Mr. Dampier apparently...
Lakhpat Rai Vs. Fakhr-ud-din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All536
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain property and that, if he was not entitled to possession, pure and simple, he might get possession after redeeming a certain mortgage. The plaintiff's title is as follows : Nand Kishore obtained a simple money-decree against Ram Mohan Lal on the 25th of May, 1889. Before judgement he had caused the property to be attached. The property was subsequently put up to sale and purchased by Lakhpat Rai on the 28th of September, 1902. The sale was confirmed on the 26th of November, 1902. The defendant, on the other hand, sets up the following title : The property in dispute had been mortgaged by Ram Mohan Lal on the 4th of April, 1889, in favour of Ram Ratan and Ram Gopal. On the 15th of June, 1897, a suit was instituted by the mortgagees for sale upon the mortgage. They obtained a decree on the 25th of September, 1897, and caused the property to be sold on...
Lakhpat Rai Vs. Fakhrud Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.190
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain property and that if he was not entitled to possession, pure and simple, he might get possession after redeeming a certain mortgage. The plaintiff's title is as follows:---Nand Kishore obtained a simple money-decree against Ram Mohan Lal on the 25th of May 1889. Before judgment he had caused the property to be attached. The property was subsequently put up to sale and purchased by Lakhpat Rai on the 28th of September 1902. The sale was confirmed on the 26th of November 1902. The defendant on the other hand sets up the following title. The property in dispute had been mortgaged by Ram Mohan Lai on the 4th of April 1889 in favour of Ram Ratan and Ram Gopal. On the 15th of June 1897 a suit was instituted by the mortgagees for sale upon the mortgage. They obtained a decree on the 25th of September 1897., and caused the property to be sold on the 20th of June 1899, when the defendant's father purchased ...
Krishna Sah Vs. This Collector of Bareilly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All222; (1917)ILR39All534
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Laud Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge has affirmed the award of the Collector on the sole ground that the appellant did not state 'the nature of his interest in the land and the particulars of his claim to compensation for such interest' by way of objection under Section 9, Clause (2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He appears to have considered that, such objection not having been put forward, he was justified (if not bound) under Section 25, to affirm the award of the Collector. Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the Collector must cause public notice to be given at convenient places, at or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and claims to compensation for all interest in such land may be made to him. Clause (2) prescribes what the notice shall state, and amongst other things that the notice shall req...
Rai Bahadur Krishna Sah, C.i.E. Vs. the Collector of Bareilly
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.76
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge has affirmed the award of the Collector on the sole ground that the appellant did not state 'the nature of his interest in the land and the particulars of his claim to compensation for such interest' by way of objection under Section 9, Clause (2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He appears to have considered that such objection not having been put forward he was justified, (if not bound), under Section 25 to affirm the award of the Collector. Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the Collector must cause public notice to be given at convenient places at or near the land to be taken stating that the Government intends to. take possession of the land and claims to compensation for all interest in such land may be made to him. Clause 2 prescribes what the notice shall state and amongst other things that the notice shall require all persons interested in the land to appear before...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »