Allahabad Court January 1920 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.
Barfi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All20; 55Ind.Cas.721
George Knox, J.1. I fail to find evidence of an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and find the accused not guilty of any such offence. Any fine paid by him will be refunded....
Bihari Lal and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All159; (1920)ILR42All268
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a right of pre-emption based on village custom. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs pre-emptors were co-sharers in the village at the date of the sale. The vendee was a stranger on that date. After the institution of the suit certain property was gifted to the vendee by which he became a co-sharer in the village such that against him, under the custom, the plaintiff's would have no right to pre-empt. The courts below have held that the suit for pre-emption was bound to fail by reason of this subsequent acquisition by the vendee of a share in the village, which placed him upon an equal footing with the pre-emptors in the co-parcenary body. The decisions are based upon the principle that the plaintiffs must, in order to succeed, be entitled to preempt not only on the date of the suit but also up to the date of the decree. The plaintiffs appeal and on their behalf at...
Thakur Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Thakur Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.71
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce a right of pre-emption based on village custom. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs preemptors were co-sharers in the village at the date of the sale. The vendee was a stranger on that date. After the institution of the suit certain property was gifted to the vendee by which he became a co-sharer in the village such that against him, under the custom, the plaintiffs would have no right to pre-empt. The Courts below have held that the suit for pre-empt ion was bound to fail by reason of this subsequent acquisition by the vendee of a share in the village, which placed him upon an equal footing with the pre emptors in the co-parcenary body. The decisions are based upon the principle that the plaintiffs must, in order to succeed, be entitled to pre-empt not only on the date of suit but also up to the date of the decree. The plaintiffs appeal, and on their behalf attention is called to a decision of...
Lachhmi Prasad Vs. Musammat Parbati and Musammat Sarupi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All166; (1920)ILR42All266
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. By will, dated the 21st of July, 1907, Din Dayal directed that after his death his two wives, Musammat Sarupi and Musammat Ram Dei ' will by all means be like myself the owners of and have authority over the properties of which I am up to this time in possession without the participation of any one else. They will have all powers of transfer, gift, etc., like myself. They may, if necessary, adopt a boy of good family according to their necessity.' The testator died on the 19th of August, 1907. Both wives survived him, Musammat Ram Dei had a daughter, Musammat Parbati, who was the plaintiff in the original action, Musammat Ram Dei died in or about the year 1911, and on the 3rd of January, 1916, Musammat Sarupi executed a deed whereby she purported to adopt the appellant. The question in this appeal is whether, on the true construction of the will, it was competent for the senior widow to adopt to her late husband. If she were compete...
Murli Dhar Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All162; (1920)ILR42All311; 55Ind.Cas.74
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 195 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act No. II of 1901) made by the Collector of Etah. The plaintiff in the suit is admittedly the lambardar of a certain mahal. The defendants are the proprietors of certain specific posts of land appertaining to that mahal. These plots of land were at one time held revenue-free, but revenue has now been assessed upon term The plaintiff came into court alleging that; the revenue assessed upon these plots was payable by the defendants; that he as lambardar had paid the said revenue, and that he was entitled to recover it from, the defendants by a suit brought against them under Section 159 of Local Act No. II of 1901. The defence on the merits, was that the revenue assessed upon these plots of land was not payable by the defendants at all, but by the general body of co-sharers, that is to say, by the owners of national interests in the proprietary rights of the mahal as as whole. Of course, if the...
Lachhmi Prasad, Minor, Through Bhagwan Singh Vs. Musammat Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.910
1. By Will, dated the 21st of July 1907, Din Dayal directed that after his death his two wives Musarnmat Sarupi and Musarnmat Ram Dei 'will by all means be like myself the owners of, and have authority over, the properties of whieh I am up to this time in possession without the participation of any one else. They will have all powers of transfer, gift, etc., like myself. They may, if necessary, adopt a boy of good family according to their necessity.' The testator died on the 19th of August 1907. Both wives survived him. Musarnmat Ram Dei had a daughter Musarnmat Parbati, who was the plaintiff in the original action. Musarnmat Ram Dei died in or about the year 1911 and on January 3rd, 1916, Musarnmat Sarupi executed a deed whereby she purported to adopt the appellant. The question in this appeal is whether on the true construction of the Will it was competent for the senior widow to adopt to her late husband. If she were competent, then the appellant is, as he claims to be, heir to the...
Harbans and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All80; 54Ind.Cas.974
1. The only question in this appeal is whether the judgment in a prior suit operates as res judicata between the parties so as to preclude the defendants from raising the pleas which they have raised in this suit. The present suit is one for fore closure of two mortgages, dated respectively the 1st of April 1902 and the 14th of November 1903,executed by Misri Naik in favour of one of the plaintiffs and the predecessors-in-title of the other plaintiffs. The original mortgagor is dead. The defendants to the suit were the three sons and three grandsons of the mortgagor, and the widow of a predeceased son. The defendants Nos. 1-7, who are the principal defendants in this case, raised various pleas, denying the mortgages, denying payment of consideration and denying the existence of family necessity for the execution of the mortgages. The Court below has held that by reason of the decision in a previous suit it is no longer open to the defendants to raise these pleas. The previous suit to w...
Abdul Wahid Vs. Halima Khatun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All235(2); (1920)ILR42All262
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. We think that the decision of the court below was obviously correct. The light in respect of which pre-emption is claimed is clearly one to which no custom of pre-emption could possibly apply. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All131; (1920)ILR42All264
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by two sons of a Hindu father primarily to get aside the sale of a certain property on the ground that it was joint family property and that the father was not empowered to part with it. In the alternative a claim was made to a right of pre-emption in the property. In this appeal we are concerned only with one portion of the property, namely, the five anna, four pie share in mauza Gahla Dudhaula. The lower court has found that the sale made by the father Was one made for legal family necessity and that it was a sale binding upon the sons. It, however, has given the plaintiffs a decree for pre-emption in respect to the five anna four pie share in mauza Gahla Dudhaula on condition of payment of Rs. 9,000, within a period of three months. The defendant vendee appeals, and it is urged with considerable force on his behalf that in the circumstances of the case the plaintiffs have no right to pre-emp...
Ram Sarup and anr. Vs. Ram Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All14; 54Ind.Cas.786
1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the evidence on the record is sufficient to establish the existence of the custom of pre-emption. The village in question formerly belonged to certain ladies. After the mutiny of 1857 Government confiscated the village and subsequently made a settlement thereof with other persons. It is obvious that when the property was in the hands of the Government, there were no owners except Government and no custom of pre-emption could possibly have then existed. Three years later, that is in 1860, when a Settlement Record was made, there was actually recorded the existence of a custom of pre-emption. This record is obviously incorrect, for whatever might have been the previous state of affairs before the confiscation, the old custom could no longer have continued to exist while the property was in the hands of Government. Obviously a custom could not have arisen between 1857 and 1860. In the year 1870 another Settlement Record was made in which the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »