Allahabad Court May 1918 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.
Doobar Tewari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All216(1); 46Ind.Cas.412
George Knox, J. 1. This application succeeds. The District Magistrate had no power to direct that each of the accused convicted furnish a bond for Rs. 200 with one surety for a like amount. At the time when he passed the order he was not trying the case as a Court of Appeal. I direct that the order be set aside and any security, that may have been furnished, be quashed. Let the record be returned....
Chitan Singh Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All374(1); 46Ind.Cas.75
1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption. The property was sold on the 5th of March 1914. The consideration stated was a sum of Rs. 4,500, which both the Courts below have found to be the true consideration. The present suit was not instituted until the 28th of January 1915, when the plaintiff alleged, amongst other things, that the sale price was only Rs. 2,731. The Court of first instance granted a decree upon payment of the price within one month. Just as that time was about to expire an application was made to the Court to extend the time. The Court intimated that it had no power to change the terms of the decree. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an appeal abandoning his allegation about the excess of the purchase-money save to the extent of Rs. 333 After the plaintiff appealed the vendee also appealed. Both appeals came up and were dismissed. The Court below refused to alter the decree of the Court of first instance with regard to the time within which the money s...
Tota Ram and anr. Vs. Gopal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All401(2); 46Ind.Cas.76
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court gave a decree. One Angnu was the vendor. The vendee was a stranger. In the first instance only the vendee put in a written statement. He alleged that after the commencement of the suit he had resold the property to the original vendor. He put in further the plea that the consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was the correct consideration, Later on the vendor also appeared and put in a written statement alleging amongst other things that the plaintiff had refused to purchase. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiff had refused to purchase and it was on this ground that the suit was dismissed. The lower Appellate Court disbelieved the evidence as to refusal and granted the decree. Two points have been urged before us in the appeal. The first relates to the finding of the Court below upon the issue as to the refusal by the plaintiff to purchase. Ha...
Saiyed Muhammad Razi-ud-dIn Vs. Raghubir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.82
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor was a Muhammadan of the Shia sect. The plaintiff Alleged in the plaint that there was a custom under which he, as a co-sharer with the vendor, was entitled to a right of pre-emption. The evidence in support of a custom was an extract from the wajib-ul-arz, which simply stated that in matters of pre emption the rights were according to faith. This is certainly a very vague entry. As a matter of fact the vendor and the pre-emptor are Shias and the best view of the law of preemption amongst Shias is that there is no right where there are more than two co-sharers. No doubt there is considerable authority the other way, but the best view appears to be that amongst Shias there is no right of pre-emption where there are more than two co-sharers. In the present case there are more than two co-sharers and it was upon this ground that the Court below dismissed the suit. In my opinion the plaintiff by the producti...
Sheo NaraIn and anr. Vs. Dildar HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All157
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. Certain property was attached in execution of a simple money decree as far back as the year 1914. Various objections were raised. The property, which consisted of a house, had been sold and purchased by an auction purchaser. It turned out that the whole house should have not been sold. The auction purchaser naturally complained that he had bid for a whole house and not a part of a house, and in the end an order was made by the court executing the decree to the following effect: 'The sale is set aside. The application for execution is struck off. The attachment will remain'. Further applications were made for execution of the decree, but no application was made in respect of the property now in dispute, which consists of a part of the house to which we have already referred. Eventually, in the year 1916, a further application in execution was made and it was asked that portion of the house should be sold. ...
Mewa Ram Vs. NaraIn Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.158
1. This is an Application for the transfer of a case of which the number is given and is said to be between Mewa Ram and Narain Das and others, residents of Etawah. The case is said to be pending in the Court of Bench Magistrates, Etawah. The application is that it be transferred from that Court to some other Magistrate of Etawah competent to try the case. It is supported by an affidavit of the vaguest description. No date whatever is given in the affidavit from beginning to end. There is nothing to show that the person who swore to the affidavit, was in Court on any particular date or was in Court on every date when the case came up for trial. The deponent says that Lala Ram Nath, one of the Bench Magistrates is a personal friend of the accused Narain Das and his two sons. He also says that the accused are in debt to Lala Ram Nath, the said Bench Magistrate. He gives no foundation for the first of the two allegations. The second is said to rest upon a copy of a mortgage-deed twelve ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›