Allahabad Court April 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.
Muhammad Yaqub Vs. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All504
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. We agree with a great deal of the criticism that has been passed upon the proceedings in this matter in the court below. It is not necessary to examine all of them in detail. They may be not unfairly summed up in this way, that the learned Judge, having somewhat hastily and without sufficient cause, ordered what he called ' proceedings in inquisition,' proceeded to repent of it and got rid of those proceedings by a sort of half inquisition which was really never properly conducted. If the brother's application was bona fide (and it is quite true that the mere fact that he was prepared to deposit Rs. 600, to pay for the Civil Surgeon's fees, is a sign that he had some belief in his case) it is a hardship upon him that all these proceedings should have taken place for nothing. But, holding the view that we do. that no inquisition ever ought to have been ordered upon the materials Before the learned Judge in the first instance, we should be ourselves committing an...
Muhammad Junaid Vs. Aulia Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All323; (1920)ILR42All497
Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.1. This appeal is connected with F. A. No. 322 of 1917. They arise out of two suits Nos. 17 and 18 of 1915 brought in the court below by two of the heirs of one Musammat Badr-un-nissa, in which they each claimed a 1/6th share in her estate. Attached to each plaint are five lists of property; lists A to D cover zamindari property and the fifth list covers house property.2. The defendants include, among others, the other heirs of the deceased, some persons who claim under an alleged will, and numerous transferees to whose hands various portions of the estate have gone either by voluntary transfers by deeds or by involuntary sales in execution of decrees.3. The following pedigree is necessary to the understanding of the case. ZAHURAN BIBI=MUBARAK-ULLAH=GHARIBAN BIBI. | | ______________________ _______________ | | | |Shams-un-nissa, Badr-un-nissa. Mehar-un- Ummat-un-died childless. | nissa. niasa. | | | | Md. Junaid, Najm-ul- | plaintiff. huda, | plai...
Mohammad Yaqub Vs. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.617
1. We agree with a great deal of the criticism that has been passed upon the proceedings in this matter in the Court below. It is not necessary to examine all of them in detail. They may be not unfairly summed up in this way, that the learned Judge, having somewhat hastily and without sufficient cause, ordered what he called proceedings in inquisition, proceeded to repent of it and got rid of those proceedings by a sort of half inquisition which was really never properly conducted. If the brother's application was bona fide (and it is quite true that the mere fact that he was prepared to deposit Rs. 600 to pay for the Civil Surgeon's fees, is a sign that he had some belief in his case), it is a hardship upon him that all these proceedings should have taken place for nothing. But holding the view that we do that no inquisition ever ought to have been ordered upon the materials before the learned Judge in the first instance, we should be ourselves committing an illogicality if we allowed...
S. Fayaz Ali Vs. S. Musharraf Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All74; 57Ind.Cas.72
1. This is a first appeal from an order arising out of a dispute between the co-sharers in a Mahal, or sub-division of a Mahal, which was admittedly formed by a partition completed on the 26th of March 1914 and taking effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following. The position of the parties is very clearly stated in the order by which the Assistant Collector dismissed this suit. A certain number of facts are not made quite clear by that order, or by anything which we can discover on the record; but we think enough is apparent to determine the result of this appeal. There was in existence, prior to the partition above referred to a Mahal or sub-division of a Mahal described in the revenue papers as khewat No. 1. This represented a certain specified, and presumably ascertainable, area of 2,391 bighas and 7 biswas. It was recorded as representing also a fractional share in the proprietary rights of the entire village (or of some larger Mahal), amounting to 13 his w...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Nasir Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All148; 56Ind.Cas.179
1. This is a defendant vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. One of his defences to the suit was that prior to the institution thereof and after the sale deed in dispute he acquired a share in the mahal by a deed of gift which made him a co-sharer in the mahal on the same footing as the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right of pre-emption as against him. He produced the deed of gift of the 29th of June 1916. The only exception taken by the plaintiff to this document was that it was not really a deed of gift but a deed of sale. No objection was taken that this document had not been duly attested as a deed of. gift ought to be attested. One of the attesting witnesses was sailed to prove the deed. He proved its execution and stated that he had attested it at the request of the donor. Not a question was put to him as to whether the attestations of the witnesses were made at the time the document was executed and in the presence of the executant or whether th...
Muhammad Junaid Vs. Musammat Aulia Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.947
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 322 of 1917. They arise out of two suits, Nos. 17 and 18 of 1915, brought in the Court below by two of the heirs of one Mutammat Badr-un-nissa, in which they each claimed a 1/6th share in her estate. Attached to each plaint are five lists of property. Lists A to D cover Zemindari property and the fifth list covers house property.2. The defendants include, among others, the other heirs of the deceased, some persons who claim under an alleged Will and numerous transferees, to whose hands various portions of the estate have gone either by voluntary transfers by deeds or by involuntary sales in execution of decrees.3. The following pedigree is necessary to the understaning of the case.4. That the two plaintiffs are heirs who would, in the absence of a Will, take each a 1/6th share in the estate is not in dispute. The estate originally came from Mubarak Ullah. He died leaving his wives and daughters. Then one wife, Zahuran Bibi, and and one ...
Tula Ram and ors. Vs. Tulshi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All11; 60Ind.Cas.3
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage executed on the 5th of July 1904 by Hulas Rai, Jawahir Lal and Dori Lal who were members of the same family. The appellants before us are t ii descendants of Hulas Rai and it is contended on their behalf that the mortgage was executed without any family necessity and is, therefore, not binding on the joint family property which was comprised in the mortgage, The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 3,000 and this amount was alleged to have been due to the' mortgagee, Sohanlal, who is now dead and is represented by his adopted son, the plaintiff, under an earlier mortgage of the 19th of June 1891 executed by Hulas Rai and Jawahir Lal in favour of Sohanlal for Rs. 2,000. We may mention that the present appellants have purchased the interests of Jawahir Lal in the mortgaged property and in the sale deed which was executed in their favour one half of the mortgage money due to the plaintiff was left in the bands of the purchaser...
Kunwar Aidal Singh Vs. L. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All170(2); 56Ind.Cas.248
1. The two Applications Nos. 18 and 19 of 1920 are applications in revision and have arisen out of two suits filed in the Court below on foot of three mortgages. The, common defence to the two suits was that they wore bad for misjoinder of causes of action and of parties and that the plaintiff was seeking a partial sale which was not permissible under the law. The lower Court disposed of both the points against the applicants. They have, therefore, some up in revision to this Court and contend that the Judge of the Court below was in error in deciding the said issues against the applicants. We think that the present applications are not entertainable. The points that have been decided against the applicants can be made the subject matter of appeals if the two suits are eventually decided against the applicants. The applications, therefore, fail and are dismissed with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale....
Piari Lal Vs. Bhagwan DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All483
Parmada Charan Banerji and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the decision of the court below is correct. The plaintiff brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal, for recovery of the value of the branches of certain trees which the plaintiff had cut down, but which, the defendants had removed and misappropriated. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the trees. The trees appertained to a grove No. 872 which has been found to have been the muafi of the defendants. They, as such muafidars and as grove-holders, mortgaged it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree for sale on the basis of the mortgage, and in execution of the decree purchased the grove. After this auction purchase he became the sole owner of the grove. The defendants contend that the land was their sir and that they had acquired the rights of ex-proprietary tenants in respect of it, and that consequently they were entitled to appropriate the timber...
Municipal Board of Etawah Vs. Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All485
Walsh, J.1. The municipality in this case seems to me to have misconceived the position. I do not know why the District Magistrate thought it was a case of gross injustice. At the outside there had. only been a fine of Rs. 10. It looks more like a case of misunderstanding. The Board issued a notice under Section 267 of the Municipalities Act of 1916. Section-267 is a section contained in that part of the Act which empowers the Municipality to take such steps as are in their opinion necessary, and of course reasonable, to protect the public against insanitary conditions. The notice may require an owner to close, remove, alter, repair, cleanse, disinfect or put in good order any latrine, drain, cesspool or other receptacle for carrying away or containing refuse. That section implies that the receptacle, whatever it may be, drain or cesspool, is not in good order and not fit for the purpose, that is to say, the sanitary purpose, for which it is required. Section 267 does not contemplate o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »