Allahabad Court February 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.
Kuar Misra Kashi Prasad Vs. Union Bank of India Ld. Through Babu Bishe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.115
1. This is an application, dated the 24th of April 1917, by an alleged transferee of a decree, to have his name substituted as decree-holder of the decree which was dated the 3rd of December 1915. The application was made to the execution Court in which the decree had been obtained and was obviously based upon Section 47, Sub-section (3), of the Code of Civil Procedure asking that Court to determine whether the applicant was, or was not, the representative of the decree-holder. Of course the applicant could not execute the decree without getting his name upon the record in that capacity, and to that extent the application was a perfectly proper one. The judgment-debtor was a company in liquidation. The liquidation was voluntary and was going on while the suit was pending. Subsequently, however, to the decree somehow or another a petition was presented to the winding up Court, which is in another province, and an official liquidator was appointed on the 10th of April 1917. It looks as t...
Shaikh Fazal Ahmad Vs. Tasadduq Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1919
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.92
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption brought under the Muhammadan Law. The first Court held that the plaintiff had duly performed the requirements of Muhammadan Law and granted the plaintiff a decree, The lower Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the first Court that the formalities of Muhammadan Law had been complied with, but dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon a finding that the plaintiff had ceased to be a co-sharer at the time of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. The finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff performed the formalities of Muhammadan Law is binding upon us in second appeal. It is said, however, that because the plaintiff made the second demand some days after making the first demand and it appearing that the vendor being a near relation of his, he could probably have made the second demand earlier by making it in her presence instead of in the presence of the vendee, and that, therefore, the plaint...
Sheoraj Singh and anr. Vs. Naik Singh Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All283; (1919)ILR61All423
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption, It appears that there were two suits brought by rival pre-emptors--one by Munna Lal alone, and the other by four other persons. In the second suit (where there were four plaintiffs) two of the plaintiffs withdrew the day after the plaint was filed, The two suits then continued, one in which Munua Lal alone was plaintiff and the other in which the remaining two plaintiffs were Sheoraj Singh and Ram Ghulam. During the trial the rival pre-emptors came to terms, by which two-thirds of the property was given to Munna Lal and one-third to the other two plaintiffs out of the half of the property sold belonging to the defendants Nos. 1--3. As to the other half of the property sold belonging to Badri Prasad (defendant No. 4) the claim for pre-emption was not pressed. The first court decreed the claim in the terms of the compromise. The vendees defendants 1--3 appealed to the Judge. As against th...
Deokinandan Vs. Mahtab Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All414; (1919)ILR61All426; 50Ind.Cas.200
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Muhammad Rafiq, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Both the courts below dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, who has come here in second appeal. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the same mahal as the vendor. The defendant vendee is a proprietor in another mahal in the village. It appears that in the year 1872 the whole village constituted one mahal, but in the year 1887 or thereabout perfect partition took place, when a number of new mahals were formed, and the defendant vendee is in one of these new mahals. Both the courts seem to have been of opinion that a custom of pre-emption prevailed, but they thought that because the vendee was a co-sharer in the village the pre-emptor had no better right than him and therefore his suit must fail. The evidence of the existence of the custom was the wajib-ul-arz of 1872. This document contains a clear record as to pre-emption. In 1887, after partition (according to the finding of the court below...
Sheoraj Singh and anr. Vs. Naik Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1919
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.153
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It appears that there were two suits brought by rival pre-emptors, one by Munna Lal alone and the other by four other persons. In the second suit (where there were four plaintiffs) two of the plaintiffs withdrew the day after the plaint was filed. The two suits then continued, one in which Munna Lal alone was plaintiff and the other in which the remaining two plaintiffs were Sheoraj Singh and Ram Ghulam. During the trial the rival pre-emptors came to terms by which two-thirds of the property was given to Munna Lal and one-third to the other two plaintiffs out of the half of the property sold belonging to the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. As to the other half of the property sold belonging to Badri Prasad (defendant No. 4), the claim for pre-emption was not pressed. The first Court decreed the claim in the terms of the compromise. The vendees-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 appealed to the Judge. As against the two plaintiffs Sheoraj Singh and Ram G...
Syed Ali Akhtar Vs. the People's Industrial Bank, LD.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1920All257; 58Ind.Cas.607
George Knox, J.1. Syed Ali Akhtar, who represents himself as having been a minor when the matter in question was first agitated, has asked this Court to permit him to proceed with the suit which he has instituted in the Court of the Munsif of Fyzabad and in which a decree was obtained ex parte against him. Thin decree, when the Bank applied for execution, was transferred to Jaunpur. He objected to the execution of the decree and it was refused. The next step that he took was that on the 14th of December 1918 three months' time was given to him to file a regular suit. This regular suit he filed before the Munsif of Jaunpur and it is there as Suit No. 162 of 1919. The defendant is the People's Industrial Bank in Liquidation through their Official Liquidator. A legal objection was raised by the said Bank through the Liquidator that no suit was maintainable without the permission of the High Court. This is hardly accurately stated, but I believe it was the way in which the petitioner under...
Musammat Barfi Vs. Lala Kishorilal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All331(1); 50Ind.Cas.79
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It appears that the applicant filed a memorandum if appeal in this Court against the decision of the District Judge. At the same time the applicant made an application that she might be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. A Bench of this Court heard that application and by an order dated the 2nd of April 1918, rejected the application upon the ground that the decree appealed against had not been shown to be contrary to law or erroneous or unjust Thereupon the applicant made a fresh application that notwithstanding limitation she might be at liberty to deposit the necessary Court-fees, so that the appeal might be tried in the ordinary way. The appeal at this time was of course long beyond time. This Court rejected this application also. Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where the Court-fees have not been paid, the Court may at its discretion allow the person by whom the fee is payable to pay...
Sundar Singh and ors. Vs. Jaisiri Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All318(1); 50Ind.Cas.50
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The Courts below decided the suit in the plaintiff's favour. The vendee appealed. The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of the alleged custom was an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1872. This entry As to the effect that in future the co sharers when selling must first offer the property to the other co-sharers; and the expression 'ainda' in the clause is explained by a rukka, which is also on the record, by the Settlement Officer to the effect that when he used this word he meant that the particular custom had not been established. Some reference has been made to judgments, but upon sending for the records of these judgments we find that they were not pre-emption cases at all. There was also a judgment in another case and apparently from another village by the District Judge of Azamgarh. From the perusal of this judgment it appears that in that case there was not only an extract from the wajib-ul-arz of 1872 but ther...
Jai NaraIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All345; 50Ind.Cas.171
Piggott, J.1. These are applications in revision by Jai Narain and 15 other persons against an order by a First Class Magistrate of Cawnpore. Jai Narain has been convicted of keeping a common gaming house under Section 8 of the Public Gambling Act, III of 1867, while the remaining applicants have been convicted under Section 4 of the same Act of having been found in the house kept by Jai Narain playing or gaming with Cowries. It is an admitted fact that, on the date specified in the charge, when the then Kotwal of Cawnpore, Munshi Baqar Ali, proceeded to a house in the city of Cawnpore belonging to Jai Narain, he found the said Jai Narain and the remaining applicants in a room of that house engaged in playing or gaming with Cowries. The question whether these convictions are of are not justified turns entirely upon the question whether or not, on the said occasion the applicant Jai Narain was making a profit out of the gambling which was going on there. The case for the prosecution if ...
Madho Ram Vs. Jagat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All322; 52Ind.Cas.18
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property was sold on 21st of February 1916. The vendee, although not actually a co sharer, was a mortgagee in possession from the vendor and his brothers. On the following July (long before the institution of the present suit) the vendee endowed the property. The present suit was instituted on the very last day of limitation by the vendor's own brother without making the Thakurji a party. The first Court dismissed it on the ground that the Thakurji was a necessary party to the suit. It held that the evidence as to the consent to the sale was not sufficient. We may say in passing that there is a strong probability when one brother in a Hindu family sells his property, and there is no evidence of any quarrel, that the other brother knows of the sale. We need hardly say that it stands to reason that where two Hindu brothers have not quarrelled, a brother desiring to sell his property would be only too pleased to sell his property to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »