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.
Jhandi Lal Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All134; 54Ind.Cas.756
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property, according to the sale-deed, had been sold for the sum of Rs. 700. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before ns, maintained that the Actual price paid was only. Rs. 300 and sought to pre-empt on the payment of that sum. The Court of first instance held on the evidence that Rs. 700 had actually been paid by the vendee. It, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree conditional on his paying into Court the sum of Rs. 700 within a period of 60 days. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with this decision as to consideration, appealed to the lower Appellate Court. He did not pay the sum of Rs. 700 into Court within the 60 days. While the appeal was pending, he asked the Appellate Court by a miscellaneous application to grant an extension of time. This the Court refused to do, and rightly refused. It could not vary the decree of the first Court on a miscellaneous application. It could only vary that decree by hearing and dec...
Sahibzada Bhai Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. Shiam Lall and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.37
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by two sons of a Hindu father primarily to set aside the sale of 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-annas, four-pies 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-pies share in Mauza Gahla Dudhaula on condition of payment of Rs. 9,000 within a period of three months. The defend ant-vendee appeals and it is urged with considerable force on his behalf that in the circumstances of the ease the plaintiffs have no right to preempt seeing that they practically ...
Abdul Wahid Vs. Halima Khatun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.188
1. We think that the decision of the Court below was obviously correct. The right in respect of which preemption is claimed is clearly one to which no custom of pre-emption could possibly apply. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
izzat HusaIn Khan Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.366
1. This appeal must succeed. It relates only to the property situates in mauza Bhojpur, a piece of haqiat mutafarriqa.' The Court of first instance held that the custom in the village was one pertaining to the khalsa lands which constitute the 20 biswa mahal. It, therefore, held that there was no proof of any custom in reference to the 'haqiat mutofarriqa.' It accordingly dismissed the claim so far as it related to the property now in dispute in this appeal. The lower Appellate Court was of opinion., that, because this land had once formed part of the 20-biswa mahal, the custom ought to be deemed to apply to it as well. With this we and it impossible to agree. The plaintiff came into Court proving a custom among the so sharers of the 20 biswa mahal in respect to their shares in that mahal. There is no evidence of the existence of a custom among the co-sharers of the 'haqiat mutafarriqa.' The custom is not attached to the land. It is true that the land in dispute may once have been a pa...
Jamna Vs. Jhalli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All111; 55Ind.Cas.94
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of five plots of land, Nos. 567, 557, 558, 561 and 1046, measuring 9-44 acres, situated in a village called Sunair, The lands are comprised in an area known as Khata No. 3, the total extent of which is 63 acres.2. The village lands are admittedly undivided and the tenure is Bhayachara.3. The plaintiff sued on the strength of a sale-deed, executed in her favour on the 10th May 1915 by two persons Pajjan and Chaturi, who according to the evidence are co sharers in the Khata to the extent of 3/4ths. The sale purported to be a sale of the entire plots in dispute, and the plaintiff alleges that her attempt to take possession of these specific lands was resisted by the defendant-respondent Jhalli. She pleads this fact as constituting a cause of action for her suit to recover actual and exclusive possession. Coupled with the claim for possession was a claim for Rs. 50 damages. The defence was that the lands in dispute were the Khudkasht of th...
Niadar Mal (insolvent) and Jhuman Lal Vs. Mulraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All260
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This is an application by a creditor who wishes to raise various questions in an appeal from the order of discharge granted by the learned Judge of Saharanpur. The only matter before us is whether the appeal should be allowed, it being contended that the appeal is out of time. Having regard to the terms of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, we are of opinion that Section 12 merely extends the time for any given appeal by the period which it is necessary to obtain essential documents for the court to which the appeal is being made and that it does not contemplate and does not allow an appellant to apply for a series of documents one after the other and to claim that his time of appeal is extended merely because he has applied within the successive periods of what he contends is the extended limitation of time. In other words an appellant must apply under Section 12 once and for all for every essential document before the period of limitation of his ...
Lal Bihari and ors. Vs. Parkali Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All309
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought, by one Sitlu Rai for establishment of his right to and possession of certain immovable property consisting of shares in sixteen villages, on the allegation that he was the reversioner of the last 'male owner of that property and that Musammat ParkaliKunwar, the. principal defendant, had no interest in that property. The lower appellate court found the facts in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his claim in respect of three villages. As regards the remaining villages the court dismissed the claim on the ground that in its opinion Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred it. The way in which the section was applied to the case was this. The name of the defendant Musammat Parkali had been entered in the revenue papers along with the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the Musammat jointly applied for partition of the villages in respect of which the claim has been dismissed and the shares...
Jagdat Tewari and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All29; 54Ind.Cas.784
Walsh, J.1. In the face of the authorities I must allow this' revision and set aside the order against .these four people for giving bonds in Rs. 500 with two sureties. The law is quite clear that the Magistrate must have evidence upon the record that they are persons likely to commit a breach of the peace. It would be better that he should do so even though the accused were prepared to admit that they were likely to cause a breach of the peace. But in any case the consent given in this matter is really no consent at all. To entitle the Magistrate to act upon consent in such a case as this he must, if it is open to him to act upon oonsent at all, obtain a full admission from eaoh of the persons oalled upon to show cause that he is likely to commit a breach of the peace, and the circumstances under which or reasons why he is likely to commit a breach of the peace, and that he fully understands that it is for that reason that he is to be bound over and that if he fails to find the sureti...
Lal Behari and ors. Vs. Musammat Parkalli Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All21; 55Ind.Cas.22
P.C. Banerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by one Sitlu Rai for establishment of his right to and possession of certain immoveable property consisting of shares in 16 villages, on the allegation that he was the reversioner of the last male owner of that property and that Musammat Parkali Kuar, the principal defendant, had no interest in that, property. The lower Appellate Court found the facts in favour of the plaintiff and decreed his claim in respect of three villages. As regards the remaining villages that Court dismissed the claim on the ground that in its opinion Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred it.2. The way in which the section was applied to the case was this: The name of the defendant Musammat Parkali had been entered in the revenue papers along with the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the Musammat jointly applied for partition of the villages in respect of which the claim has been dismissed and the shares recorded in t...
Mool Raj Vs. Niadar Mal (insolvent) and Babu Jhuman Lal Vakil Receiver ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All31; 55Ind.Cas.315
1. This is an application by a creditor who wishes to raise various questions in an appeal on the order of discharge granted by the learned Judge of Saharanpur. The only matter before us is whether the appeal should be allowed, it being contended that the appeal is out of time. Having regard to the terms of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, we are of opinion that Section 12 merely extends the time for any given appeal by the period which is necessary to obtain essential documents for the Court to which the appeal is being made, and that it does not contemplate and does not allow an appellant to apply for a series of documents one after the other and to claim that his time of appeal is extended merely because he has applied within the successive periods of what he contends is the extended limitation of time. In other words, an appellant must apply under Section 12 once and for all for every essential document before the period of limitation of his appeal has run out. He cannot seek in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »