Allahabad Court July 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.
Wazir Ali and anr. Vs. Ali Islam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All386; 47Ind.Cas.833
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought under the circumstances mentioned in detail in the judgment of the Court below. It is unnecessary to repeat all the facts and it is sufficient to say that on the 21st of December 1864 one Iradut Ullah made a usufructuary mortgage of certain shares in four villages, one of which was the village Gangapur. The present suit is for the redemption of that village The equity of redemption in one of the mortgaged villages, namely, Pul Ratni, was sold by auction and purchased by one Mazhar Ali in 1874. He sold it in 1882, and the share which he purchased ultimately came to one Sarju Singh. In 1687, Sarju Singh brought a suit for redemption and got a decree for redemption of all the four mortgaged villages and obtained possession in 1891. The present appellant Wazir Ali ia the purchaser of the rights of Sarju in Gangapur and he is in possession by virtue of his purchase. In 1873 the share in Gangapur was purchased at auction by Kali Char...
Lala Ram Vs. Thakur Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All305; (1918)ILR40All680; 47Ind.Cas.947
Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for possession of a house which originally belonged to the defendant respondent. In execution of a decree obtained against the said defendant the house was sold by auction so far back as the 23rd of November, 1910 and it was purchased by the plaintiff. He obtained formal delivery of possession, but as he did not get actual possession, he brought the present suit. The claim was contested on the ground that the house claimed was the house of an agriculturist and was therefore not liable to sale in execution of a decree in view of the provisions of Section 60 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This objection prevailed in the courts below and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal and he raises two questions. The first is that the lower appellate court ought to have determined whether the house was the house of an agriculturist or was appurtenant to the hous...
Kanhai Lal and ors. Vs. Ganga,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All154
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts of the case are not in dispute. One Tika Ram was the owner of the property in respect of which this suit has been brought. He had a wife, Musammat Jhunia, two sons and two daughters. His two sons predeceased him, and one of them left a widow, Musammat Ganga. Tika Ram died and his wife Musammat Jhunia survived him, She died some sixteen years before the present suit was brought. On her death her two daughters, Musammat Dhanno and Musammat Jethi, were in law entitled to take the property. However, Musammat Ganga took possession and obtained mutation of names in her own favour and admittedly has been in possession ever since. Neither Musammat Dhanno nor Musammat Jethi apparently opposed her. Musammat Jethi died some eight years before the suit leaving the three plaintiffs, her sons. Musammat Dhanno is still alive. On the 6th of April, 1915, Musammat Ganga made a will, bequeathing this property, as if it were her own, t...
Musammat Ganga Vs. Kanhai Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1915All15; 47Ind.Cas.222
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The fasts of the ease are not in dispute. One Tika Ram was the owner of the property in respect of which this suit has been brought. He had a wife Musmamat Jhunia, two sons and two daughters. His two sons predeceased him and one of them left a widow Musammat Ganga. Tika, Ram died and his wife Musammat Jhunia survived him. She died some 16 years before the present suit was brought. On her death two daughters Musammat Dhanno and Musammat Jethi were in law entitled to take the property. However, Musamrnat Ganga took possession and obtained mutation of names in her own favour and admittedly has been in possession ever since. Neither Musammat Dhanno nor Musamrnat Jethi apparently opposed her. Musammat Jethi died some eight years before suit leaving the three plaintiffs, her sons, Musammat Dhanno is still alive. On the 6th of April 1915, Musammat Ganga made a Will, bequeathing this property, as if it were her own, to the defendants Khachar Mal and Cheda Lal. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›