Allahabad Court June 1921 Judgments
Lala Baijnath Das Vs. Bishen Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.676
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff is the son of Lala Narain Das. The defendant-respondent, Musammat Bishen Devi, is his own mother and Lala Jagannath Das, the other defendant respondent, is his own brother. According to the allegations in the plaint the father, Lala Narain Das, and the two sons constituted a joint Hindu family and their mother, the defendant No. 1, lived jointly with Lala Narain Das, when on the 20th of November 1891 Narain Das purchased out of joint family funds the property which is now in dispute at an auction sale in execution of a decree obtained by him against certain judgment-debtors. The purchase was made in the name of Musammat Bishen Devi, the wife of Narain Das, The ertificate of sale was issued in her name and mutation of names took place in her favour after the sale. Her name has continued from that time down to the present. In January 1911 Narain Das died. In 1917 Musammat Bishen Devi applied, to the Revenue Court for partition of the share r...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Sarbjit Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.806
1. The dispute in this appeal relater to certain plots of land, situated in the village Nemi Anma, Pargana Sylhet. The plaintiffs are some of the co-sharers of that village. The defendants are also co-sharer in the same village.2. In the year 1898 the said village was partitioned by the Government and lots were prepared by virtue of whish the plots in dispute were allotted to the Mahal to whish the predecessors-in-title of both the parties belonged. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that after the said partition the plots in question had been in the joint khudkasht cultivation of predecessors of the parties, and that the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly cultivated the said plots till 1318 Fasli. It was also stated that after the said year a person named Thagai was pot in cultivatory possession of the said plots on behalf of the above parties, that be continued in cultivation till 1321 Fasli and that the plaintiffs thereafter resumed possession. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Makund Singh Vs. Gopi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All238; 64Ind.Cas.110
1. This is a defendant-vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The three vendors are the sons of one Jatwar Singh, a Brahmin by caste. The plaintiffs are the two first cousins of the vendors. Their case is that on the 26th of July 1915 the vendors sold this property to Raja Makund Singh really for the sum of Rs. 8,000 but falsely entered a sum of Rs. 11,000 in the sale-deed; that there is a custom existing among the proprietors of the village under which the plaintiffs by reason of their blood relationship alone are entitled to pre-empt. They, therefore, claim the right to pre-empt not on the basis of co-ownership but simply on the basis of blood relationship. The suit was instituted on the 26th of July 1916, that is, on the last day of limitation. The vendee contested the case. He denied that there was any such custom; he pleaded that Rs. 11,000 was the true consideration and he further urged that the plaintiffs had been offered the property prior to his purchase and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sakhi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All241; 63Ind.Cas.408
Stuart, J.1. The facts are as follows: A raid was made on a gaming house and certain men were arrested. The Police seized, amongst other things, the money that they found on the persons of the men arrested and also what is vaguely described in the search list as 'two anna and four anna bits which were found under the thigh of Ram Sakhi Ram'--these are the words of the search list. The Magistrate, who tried the case, does not appear to have determined whether the latter money was on the person of Ram Sakhi Ram or on the ground. From the wording of the search list it is not clear whether Ram Sakhi Ram was or was not sitting on the heap of coins and trying to conceal them. Further the Police failed to note how much money was in the heap. It is unfortunate that the learned Sessions Judge, while endeavouring to put right what he considered to be an error of the Magistrate, has failed to examine the facts in detail or in the light of the decision of Lindsay, J., in Tulla v. Emperor 54 Ind. C...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Pande Chandan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.727
1. It appears that in Qasba Gangoh in the district of Saharanpur it has been customary to hold on Dasehra day and on Chait Sudi Ashtami ceremonies in honour of Shakamber Devi. The pucca chabutra on whish these ceremonies are celebrated is situate within some 40 feet of a Muhammadan mosque. There is no evidence as to the antiquity of these two ceremonies, but at all events they were being tarried on is 1900, and probably long before. Some disputes arose between the Hindus and Muhammadans, because the Muhammadans alleged that the Hindus made a noise with drums, with shells, with bells and other musical instruments and disturbed the Muhammadans at a time when they were saying their prayers at the mosque. The Hindus claimed a right to do what they said they had always hitherto done and in that way there arose bad feeling between the two communities. In 1901 the matter got into the hands of the Police and on the 19th of November at that year it was agreed between representative Hindus and M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›