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.
Ram Bharosa Sahu Vs. Musammat Kabutra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All301; 50Ind.Cas.48
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. It appears that the property was mortgaged as far back as the year 1907. The particular form of mortgage adopted was what is called a mortgage by conditional sale. No suit we then instituted to assert any right of pre-emption. A foreclosure decree was obtained in 1912, which was made absolute on the 7th of June 1913. Again no attempt was made to assert any right of pre-emption. The property was then transferred to the appellant on the 1st of April 1914 and the present suit was not instituted until the 26th of June 1915, that is, more than a year after (he transfer in favour of the defendant vendee was registered. If pre-emption was sought by virtue of this last mentioned deed of transfer, it is quite clear that it was barred under Article 10 of the Limitation Act as being brought more than one year after the registration of the sale-deed. The plaintiff, however, based her cause of action on the making of the decree absolute in the fo...
Chand Rai and ors. Vs. Bhagwant Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All417; 50Ind.Cas.90
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. There were three plaintiffs and amongst the defendants was the vendee named in the sale-deed of the 29th of April 1915, There was also another defendant named Bhagwat Rai, to whom a portion of the property was transferred on the 25th of April 1916. The plaintiffs, in addition to claiming to be entitled to pre-emption, challenged the fact of the consideration, alleging that the consideration in the sale-deed was not the true consideration. The defendant denied the existence of the custom, stating that the consideration in the sale-deed was the real consideration, and the special defence was put in by Bhagwat Rai to the effect, that since the institution of the suit a portion of the property was transferred to him and that he was a co-sharer and that accordingly the plaintiffs could not obtain a decree against him in any event. There was a common defence that one of the plaintiffs not being a co-sharer either at the time of the origina...
Umrao Beg Vs. Mukhtar Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All329(1); 50Ind.Cas.80
1. This suit was clearly instituted after the expiration of one year from the date when the sale-deed was registered. The subject-matter of the sale were fractional shares of Zemindari situate in several different khatas. Article 10 of the Limitation Aot provides that a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption must be brought within one year and the time commences to run from the time when physical possession of the whole of the property sold is taken, or (where the subject of the sale does not admit of physical possession) when the instrument of sale is registered. In our opinion this property, being of the nature above described, was not capable of being taken, 'physical possession of' within the meaning of that expression in Article 10 of the Limitation Act. That being so, the suit was clearly barred by time and the decision of the Court below was correct. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Parbhu NaraIn Singh Vs. Ramzan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All417
Piggott, J.1. This second appeal arises on the following set of facts. In the year 1882 the plaintiff appellant granted to one Musammat Mahugi permission to build on certain land belonging to him. He took from her a certain agreement, which contained, amongst other stipulations, the following, that if at any time she were to vacate the land and to sell any house or houses which she had built thereon, she would, according to the ancient custom of the locality, pay to the plaintiff one-fourth of the purchase-money. Admittedly the heirs and successors of Musammat Mahugi sold two houses built by the latter on the site in question to the defendant respondent, Ramzan. The present suit was to recover from the surviving heir of Musammat Mahugi and from the said Ramzan one-fourth of the purchase-money. The court of first instance gave a decree for the ascertained amount, recoverable jointly and severally from the two defendants. Ramzan appealed to the District Judge, and the latter dismissed th...
Sri Maharaj Prabhu NaraIn Singh, Maharaja of Benares Vs. Ramzan and or ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All235; 49Ind.Cas.865
Piggott, J.1. This second appeal arises on the following set of facts. In the year 1882 the plaintiff-appellant granted to one Musammat Mahugi permission to build on certain land belonging to him. He took from her a certain agreement, which contained amongst other stipulations lowing, that if at any time she were to vacate the land and to sell any house or houses which she had built thereon, she would according to the ancient custom of the locality pay to the plaintiff one-fourth of the purchase-money. Admittedly the heirs and successors of Musammat Mahugi sold two houses built by the latter on the site in question to the defendant-respondent Ramzan. The present suit was to recover from the surviving heir of Musammat Mahugi and from the said Ramzan one-fourth of the purchase-money. The Court of first instance gave a decree for the ascertained amount, recoverable jointly and severally from the two defendants. Ramzan appealed to the District Judge and the latter dismissed the suit as aga...
Ali Muqtada Khan and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All162; (1919)ILR61All412
Muhammad Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The following pedigree will explain the right under which the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen:Syed Ali Azam Khan_________________________|_________________| |Bunyad Ali Khan. Aman Ali Khan.____________________|_________| |Ali Ahsan Khan. Ali Muzaffar Khan.|Ali Aslam Khan. Ali Muntazim Khan.__________________________________________|______________| | |Ali Taqi Khan. Ali Mujtaba Khan. Ali Mutahida__________|__________ __________|______________ Khan.| | | | | |Ali Akhtar Khan. Ali Mohtashim. Ali Muttaqi Ali Ijtaba Ali Ittiqa |Khan. Khan. Khan. |_____________________________________|__________________________|______________________________| | | | |Ali Muqtada Ali Ata Khan. Ali Murtaza Ali Sabir Ali SafdarKhan. Khan. Khan Khan.2. The ancestor of the plaintiffs, Bunyad Ali Khan, was possessed of considerable property in respect of which he created a waqf on the 23rd of November, 1845, by a registered deed, under which his two ...
Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All164; 51Ind.Cas.205
Piggott, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, declining to interfere with an order by a First Class Magistrate of the same district passed under Section 2 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859). As the application raises one question of law on which it is supported by the authority of the Punjab Chief Court, I think it advisable to state the essential facts of the case and my reasons for rejecting the application. The applicants are eight workmen who entered into an agreement by which they incurred certain joint and several liabilities towards a contractor, named Murli Dhar. The applicants were to furnish Murli Dhar with stone road metal at certain specified rates. They were to receive advances from the said contractor and they were to continue working for him, and for no one else, so long as any sum remained due to Murli Dhar in respect of the said advances. There was a special provision to the effect that the contract m...
Syed Ali Muqtadi Khan and ors. Vs. Abdul Hamid Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1919
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.878
1. The following pedigree will explain the right under which the plaintiffs brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Saiyed Ali Azam Khan __________________________|________________________ | |Buniyad Ali Khan. Aman Ali Khan, _____________|_____________ | | Ali Ahsan Khan, Ali Aglam Khan. | | Ali Muzaffar Khan Ali Muntazim Khan, _____________________________| | __________________________|________________________________________ | | | Ali Taqi Khan, Ali Mujtaba Khan, Ali Muhtada Khan | | |___________________ _________|____________ _________|________________________________ | | | | | | |Ali Akhtar Khan, Ali Mohtashim Khan. Ali Muttaqi Khan, Ali Ijtiba Khan. Ali Ittiqa Khan. | ___________________________________| ____________________________________________________|____________________________________ | | | | | Ali Muqtada Khan. Ali Ata Khan. Ali Murtaza Khan. Ali Sabir Khan. Ali Safdar Khan.2. The ancestor of the plaintiffs, Buniyad Ali Khan, was possessed of considerable pr...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Naraini and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All395; 51Ind.Cas.158
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a bond, which has been called, not inappropriately, an indemnity bond. It appears that there was a mortgage executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Musammat Maharani. On her death there were two sets of persons claiming to be entitled to the property held by her. One claimant was a man of the name of Kanhaia Ram. He alleged that he had received payment of the entire mortgage money from the plaintiff, and there was given in evidence a receipt he executed for the full amount and the bond which is the basis of the present suit. In that bond Kanhaia Ram covenanted that if anyone else put forward a claim to the money secured by the deed of mortgage and if he failed to prove his power to give a discharge and if the plaintiff should be obliged to pay any one else, then he would indemnify the plaintiff against such payment. Certain property was hypothecated to secure this covenant....
Muhammad Ali Vs. Kadma Pasin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All399
Piggott, J.1. In this case the two courts below have differed upon a question of law of some difficulty regarding the application of the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 14, of the Code of Civil Procedure to the facts of this particular case. The respondent obtained from the original judgment-debtor appellant a possessory mortgage in respect of certain property. That property comprised a fixed-rate holding and also the right to collect a portion of the dues received at a certain temple. Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee was entitled to possession over the holding and to realize for himself the share of the temple dues specified in the document. We are informed that he obtained possession over the fixed-rate holding. With regard to the temple dues the respondent, who is a Muhammadan, seems to have found some difficulty about realizing them himself. He entered into a further contract with his mortgagor which may be described as a lease or farm of the right secured to the mortg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »