Allahabad Court December 1919 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.
Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh Vs. Joshi Damodarji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All1; (1920)ILR42All230
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,50,000, principal and Rs. 58,746-1-6, interest, in all Rs. 4,08,746-1-6, on the basis of a promissory note executed by the appellant on the 9th of November, 1910.2. The plaintiffs are a firm of jewellers and money-lenders of Benares, who carry on considerable business. The defendant appellant is the Raja of Amethi and a taluqdar of Oudh. In 1904 a suit was pending against him in regard to his estate and for the expenses of that suit he was in need of money, He was approached by the plaintiffs' firm and dealings began with him. Large sums of money were advanced to him from time to time and he also purchased jewelry of considerable value from the plaintiffs. It is alleged and not denied that he received from the plaintiffs nearly three lakhs of rupees in cash and it is stated that jewelry of the value of nearly 90,000 rupees was supplied to him. Accounts were submitted to him from...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Mannu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.10
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption or, rather one might say, for pre-mortgage. Curiously enough it has resulted in the Courts below giving a decree for redemption of a mortgage, though we fancy that this was a clerical error. The facts are as follows:-- The mortgagors are the owners of certain property which was mortgaged to the plaintiff's preemptors with possession. The mortgagors brought a suit for redemption of the mortgage and obtained a decree. In order to raise money they went to the defendant-appellant, Jwala Prasad, and to prevent any question of pre-emption being raised, they executed ostensibly a deed of gift in his favour for two Biswas and a decimal share and followed this up with a simple mortgage of another portion of the properly. The Courts below have found, and rightly so, that these two documents really constitute one and the same transaction and that that transaction was a simple mortgage of the property covered by the two deeds. T...
Babu Ulfat Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All15; 55Ind.Cas.292
George Knox, J.1. This is an application in revision. The order I am asked to revise is an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. It is dated the 1st. of September 1919 and was passed in the case of King-Emperor v. Babu Ulfat Rai. That order is on the record. It directs that Babu Ulfat Rai should be prosecuted for offences falling under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It further directs under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the case be sent down to the District Magistrate for trial by himself or any First Class Magistrate subordinate to him. There has been a great deal of argument addressed to me, but the only point that I have to consider is whether the action of the learned Sessions Judge in passing the order under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was contrary to law. According to an affidavit which will be found on the record and which is dated the 15th of September 1919, that being the date o...
Thakur Atraj Singh Vs. Mooloo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All350; 54Ind.Cas.875
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The Courts below dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the evidenae produced was insufficient to prove the custom alleged. The evidence consisted of the production of two wajib ul-arzes and certain oral evidence on both sides, and the fast that there had been at least ten sales in favour of the plaintiff in the same Mahal. The lower Appellate Court in respect of the oral evidenae has in dear language said that it is worthless and that no reliance can be placed upon it. This refers to the oral evidence on both sides. It decided the point simply on its interpretation of the documentary evidence and the inference to be drawn from the fact that all the sales in this Mahal had been made in favour of the plaintiff. It held that the sales in favour of the plaintiff proved nothing at all and that the two wajib-ul-arzes were insufficient to establish the custom. The first wajib ul-arz is that of the settlement of...
Raja Bhagwan Baksh Singh Vs. Damodarji Joshi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.20
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,50,000, principal, and Rs. 58,746-1-6, interest, in all, Rs. 4,08,746-1-6, on the basis of a promissory note executed by the appellant on the 9th of November 1910.2. The plaintiffs are a firm of jewellers and money-lenders of Benares, who carry on considerable business. The defendant-appellant is the Raja of Amethi and a Taluqdar of Oudh. In 1904, a suit was pending against him in regard to his Estate and for the expenses of that suit he was in need of money. He was approached by the plaintiff's firm and dealings began with him. Large sums of money were advanced to him from time to time and he also purchased jewelry of considerable value from the plaintiffs. It is alleged, and not denied, that he received from the plaintiffs nearly three lacs of rupees in cash and it is stated that jewelry of the value of nearly Rs. 90,000 was supplied to him. Accounts were submitted to him from time to time and he signed them and, on two previo...
Hafiz Kifayat Ullah Khan Vs. Sri Raghunathji of Rajgopal Mandir of Aju ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All24; 55Ind.Cas.230
1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 5. He and the defendant No. 6 in the Court below were alleged by the plaintiff to have signed a security bond for the due performance by the defendants Nos. 1-4 of certain covenants in a lease. The defendant No. 5 is the only appellant before this Court and he seeks to escape liability on two grounds: First, whilst not denying that the signature on the document is in fast his signature, he takes, as he is entitled to do, the legal objection that that document is not in law binding on him inasmuch as the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act were not complied with; the second ground that he takes is this, that there was in the lease a time limit of 15 days and that time limit had run off before the 23rd of December 1907, the day on which the security bond was executed. Now this is a matter that can be disposed of very shortly. The first point that the mortgage was not duly executed and attested is sought to be proved by the ap...
Thakur Bishambar Nath Singh Vs. Basant Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All68(2); 55Ind.Cas.31
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The property in suit is a bit of land lying within the limits of the village Yahyapur which forms part of the town of Allahabad. The plaintiff is a co sharer in the Zemindari, sixteen annas mahal of Yahyapur, and he claims that he has a right of pre-emption in respect of this plot. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim. The defendant comes here on appeal and he urges that, on the face of the documentary evidence put forward to prove the case, the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption whatsoever as against him. The land in question is part of what is known as the hakkiyat mutfurrika; that is to say, the miscellaneous plots within the boundary of the village. An examination of the khewat shows clearly that the Zemindari Part of the village now consists of an area of only 11 bighas 15 biswas, that the miscellaneous plots total to 26 bighas 4 biswas and that the inhabitanted site covers 158 bighas 11 biswas. In the wajib-ul-arz, on which the plaintif...
Mahraj Singh Vs. Pitambar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All344; 54Ind.Cas.768
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre emption based upon village custom. The Courts below have both held that the existence of the custom was established. The plaintiff produced one wajib ul-arz and he called two witnesses. The defendant called other witnesses. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, it merely consists of a parrot like repetition on the one side that the custom existed and on the other side that the custom did not exist. The defendant also attempted to show that sales to strangers had taken plica. The first Court on a consideration of the evidence as a whole decided in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court shows that that Court considered nothing else but the wajib ul-arz. It held that the wajib ul-arz clearly recorded a custom under 'which the plaintiff was entitled to preempt and it upheld the decision of the first Court. If the decision of the Court below had been based upon all the evidence on the record, we might perhaps have b...
Jawad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All82(1); 54Ind.Cas.769
George Knox, J.1. This is an application for admission to bail. The applicants are under trial for an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. On turning to Schedule 2 attached to the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be found that offences under Section 408 are not bailable offences. The Magistrate in charge . of the case has refused bail. A case of this nature has to be dealt with under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Paragraph 2 of that section1 lays down that if it appears to a Court at any stage of the investigation, enquiry or trial that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed such offence but that there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such enquiry, be released on bail. From this it seems that the law requires that the investigation, enquiry or trial which is proceeding should be examined and that before admitting to bail this Court should come to the conclusion that ...
Jaipal Rai Vs. Sahdeo Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All99; 55Ind.Cas.35
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for preemption. It has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff, the vendor and the vendee are all co-sharers in the village. The plaintiff and the vendor are co sharers in the same khata. The vendee is a co-sharer in another khata. The village is one held on Bighadam tenure. The question is whether or not the co-sharers have preferential rights of preemption inter se. The wajibul are states that when a co-sharer wishes to sell or mortgage, he offers his share first of all to his near co-sharer and in case of his refusal to any other co-sharer in the village and if they refuse then he may sell to a stranger. The record then goes on to say, 'if he sells it to a stranger in spite of the willingness of a co-sharer, the latter will be at liberty to enforce his right of pre-emption and to take the property at the market value.' Both the Courts below have held that on the face of a custom expressed in these words the right of preemption only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »