Allahabad Court March 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.
Musammat Bashirunnisa and ors. Vs. Bunyad Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All206; 50Ind.Cas.677
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by Musammat Bashirunnisa and two purchasers from her for partition of two sihams out of eight sihams of property alleged to have belonged to one Khadim Ali. Bashtr-unnissa stated that she was the second wife of Khadim Ali and as such, was entitled to two sihams out of eight sihams. Khadim Ali died in May 1916 leaving no issue. The defendants are his brother and sisters. If Musammat Bashirunnisa was the widow of Khadim Ali she inherited the share claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendants, however, denied that Musammat Bashirunnissa was married to Khadim Ali and they stated that she lived with him as a servant and cook. They also raised a question as to the ownership of the houses claimed. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the claim. The defendants appealed and in their appeal in the lower Appellate Court the only question which they raised was whether it had been proved th...
Haidar Khan and ors. Vs. Chand Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All302; 50Ind.Cas.691
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of a half share in a certain property.2. The aforesaid property belonged originally to one Jamiat Khan, who died many years ago leaving a son, Chand Khan, and three daughters. One of the daughters, Musammat Rani, has died childless. The 1st plaintiff is the son of one of the daughters, Musammat Shitabo, and the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the grandsons of another daughter, Musammat Daleha Chand Khan's name was entered in the revenue papers in regard to the property and he made several mortgages in favour of Mohan Lal, the 2nd defendant, who has got a decree on his mortgages. The plaintiffs assert that the daughters of Jamiat Khan were in possession of their shares. According to Muhammadan Law half of the property of Jamiat Khan went to Chand Khan, the son, and the other half was inherited by his sisters, the ancestors of the plaintiffs. It is this half...
Kishori Lal Vs. Kalean Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All222(1); 50Ind.Cas.648
Lindsay, J.1. The applicant here, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance, has been unfortunate in the trial of his case. The case was instituted in the Court of Small Causes and was under the orders of the District Judge, transferred for disposal to a Bench of Honorary Munsifs. The whole procedure of the Munsifs, after the case came to their cognizance, is a chapter of errors resulting apparently in considerable hardship to the plaintiff The plaintiff took certain measures in order to secure a proper order from the Bench and he succeeded so far, that the Bench of Munsifs, acting under the directions of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, passed what purported to be an amended decree in favour of the plaintiff. One of the defendants then went in appeal to the District Judge, who has held that the Munsifs had no authority to amend the decree and consequently he has set aside their order. Tie plaintiff now attacks the order of the learned District Judge, on the ground that h...
Saghir-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Muhammad Subhan-ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All562
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sued her husband to recover the sum of Rs. 35,000 being the balance of dower alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff. It appears that the parties were married a considerable time ago and the plaintiff has borne four sons to her husband. She alleges in her plaint that about 7 or 8 years ago her husband contracted an intimacy with another woman and from that time he took very little interest in her. She contends that her dower was the sum of Rs. 1,25,000, but she admits that a considerable amount of this sum has already been satisfied by transferring certain property. She says that the whole of her dower was prompt, and therefore she is entitled to recover the balance. The defendant contended that her dower was only Rs. 14,000; that there was no settlement as to how much of the dower should be prompt, and that in no event should the plaintiff be allowed to recover any further sum having regard to the fact that he had ...
Badri Prasad and ors. Vs. Gopal Bihari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All553
1. The following pedigree will explain the right under which the parties to this appeal are litigating.Makhan Lal.________________________________|_________________________________ | | | Atal Bihari. Bal Kakund. Kunj Bi bari| | Lal .Chhail Bihari | | Lal | Adopted sonhis widow | Sri Na rainMausammat | | Harbansa | | Kunwar. | | _______________________________|_________________ | | | | | | Brij Bihari Ram Dayal Raghbir Murli | Lal. | Dayal Manohar. | ______|______ | | | | | | | | | | Jai Bihari Binod Kishan | | | Lal Bihari Dayal | | | | Lal | | | | | | | | | | | ____|____ | | | | | | | | Prem Anup | | | Bihari Bihari | | | | | |____________________|_____ | | | | | | Maha | Badri | | Narain. Shiam Narain | | Narain Plaintiff. | || |_____________________________| |__________|_____________________________ | | | | | Sukhadeo Basant Bihari Nit Bihari Lal, | Bihari Lal plaintiff. Plaintiff. | |___________________|____________________|___________________|Gopal Bihari Madho Narain, Kunwar Biha...
Maulvi Muhammad Subhanullah Vs. Musammat Saghirunnisa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All280; 50Ind.Cas.740
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sued her husband to recover the sum of Rs. 35,000, being the balance of dower alleged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff. It appears that the parties were married a considerable time ago and the plaintiff has borne four sons to her husband. She alleges in her plaint that about 7 or 8 years ago her husband contracted an 'intimacy' with another woman and from that time on he took very little interest in her. She contends that her dower was the sum of Rs. 1,25,000, but she admits that a considerable amount of this sura has already been satisfied by transferring certain property. She says that the whole of her dower was prompt, and, therefore, she is entitled to recover the balance. The defendant contended that her dower was only Rs. 14,000; that there was no settlement as, to how much of the dower should be prompt, and that in no event should the plaintiff be allowed to recover any further sum having regard to the fact th...
Gur DIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All158; 50Ind.Cas.992
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun re-commending under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the conviction and sentence passed against Gurdin should be set aside. It appears that some shrubs in the compound of a house formed an obstruction at a certain corner of a public road which was considered dangerous to motorists and others using that road. The Officer Commanding the station wrote to the Cantonment Magistrate suggesting that steps should be taken to remove the obstruction. The learned Cantonment Magistrate gave a verbal order to a Mali to lop the shrubs. The Mali said that he would speak to the head Mali and the head Mali was the accused Gurdin. It is proved that this verbal order was communicated to Gurdin who disobeyed or disregarded the order, probably acting under instructions from the owner of the compound. Thereupon a charge was made against Gurdin under Section 288 of the Cantonment Code for not having compli...
Lala Darbari Lal Vs. Roshan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All328; 52Ind.Cas.32
Piggot, J.1. The question raised by this application is one of jurisdiction. The Court below was asked to consider this point and remarked that the town of Hathras, where the parties reside and where the property in suit is situated, is now, and was on the date of the order under consideration, within the jurisdiction of that Court as Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. If this statement is correct, it is conclusive of the question raised by the application for revision. There is nothing to show that the statement is not correct, and so far as one can gather from such orders as have been issued by this Court, the intention of the Court always was that the work of the Aligarh district should go to the Subordinate Judge and the work of the two districts in the judgeship, namely, Etah and Bulandshahar, to the Additional Subordinate Judge. We do not think any case is made out for interference. We dismiss this application.Walsh, J.2. I agree. I only want to add a word or two in consequence of the...
Wasi Ahmad and ors. Vs. Maina Bibi and ors.,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All538
1. The following pedigree will explain the right under which the parties to the appeal are disputing:SHAIKH SHAMSHER ALI_____________________|_____________________| |Shaikh Amin-ud-din= Shaikh Kazim Ali. Khair-un-niss Bibi. | | Shaikh Muin-ud-din= Barkat-un-nissa= Mainu Bibi, Maulvi Maslah-ud-din defendant No. 1. Ahmad.|_______________________________________________________|______________________________________ _| | | | | |Chaudhri Chaudhri Chaudhri Ummahani Muhid-un- Mui z-un-Wasi Ahmad, Wakil Ahmad, Zubair Ahmad, Bibi, nissa Bibi= nis a Bibi=Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 Plintiff No. 3. Mir Riyait Sheikh H akimHusain. Muhammad AhmadFakhir Hasan.DefendantNo. 7._____________________|_______________________|_______________________| |Shaikh Muhammad Nazir, Shaikh Muhammad Shaki r,Defendant No. 8 Defendant No. 92. Muin-ud-din died on the 6th of May, 1890, possessed of immovable property the inheritance to which is in dispute in the present case. He died leaving him surviving his wido...
Musammat Maina Bibi and ors. Vs. Chaudhari Wasi Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All128; 51Ind.Cas.242
1. The following pedigree to the appeal are disputing:-will explain the right under which the parties SHAIKH SHAMSHER ALI | _____________________________________________________________________________ | | Shaikh Aminuddin = Khairunnisa Bibi, Shaikh Kazim Ali, | | Barkatunnisa=Maulvi Maslahuddin Ahmad, Shaikh Minuddin=Maina Bibi, | defendant No. 1. | | ________________________________ | ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Chaudhari Chaudhari Chaudhari Ummahani Bibi= Muhibunnissa Muizunnissa Wasi Ahmad, Wakil Ahmad, Zubair Ahmad, Mir Riyait Bibi=Shaikh Bibi = Hakim plaintiff No. 1. plaintiff. No. 2. plaintiff No. 3. Husain. Mohd. Fakhir, Ahmad Hasan. defendant No.7, | _________________________ | _____________________________________________ | | Shaikh Muhammad Nazir, defendant No. 8. Shaikh Muhammad Shakir, defendant No. 9.2. Muinuddin died on the 6th of May 1890 possessed of immoveable property the inherita...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »