Allahabad Court August 1921 Judgments
Latif-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Said-ud-dIn and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All114
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Second Appeals Nos. 696 and 607 are two appeals arising out of a pre-emption suit. Admittedly the rules of the Muhammadan Law apply to the case. The property in question consisted of zamindari shares in 5 khatas in one mahal. The 5 khatas are Nos. 17, 25, 49, 20 and 48. The plaintiff, the vendee, and the vendor at the date of sale were all co-sharers in the mahal. The plaintiff, however, owned shares in khatas nos. 17, 25 and 49. The vendee had no shares in any of the 5 khatas. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled as being a co-sharer in khatas 17, 25 and 49 to a decree for pre-emption in respect to the whole of the shares sold in those 3 khatas.2. In regard to Nos. 29 and 48 he claimed that he stood on the same footing as the vendee and, therefore, under the law as administered in these Provinces, he was entitled to a half of the property sold in those two khatas. The court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for half of the property sold in...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhu Dayal Vs. Jamil Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All160; (1922)ILR44All117; 64Ind.Cas.646
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out) of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,300 entered in the sale-deed was fictitious. On behalf of the defendants the custom of pre-emption was denied and it was further pleaded that an offer had been made to the plaintiff and he had refused to purchase, and that the true consideration had been entered in the sale-deed. So far as the amount of consideration was concerned the parties agreed in the court of first instance that it should be fixed at Rs. 1,150. After this the guardian ad litem of the defendant, minor, made a statement that if the plaintiff, holding Ganges water in his hands, took an oath that he had not refused to take this property before the sale-deed, then his suit should be decreed. This was duly recorded by the court. The plaintiff agreed to take the oath which was administered to him. The plaintiff swore that no offer had ever been made to him and that he had not re...
Tag this Judgment!SyeeduddIn Vs. Latifunnissa and Musammat Shafiunnissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All391; 64Ind.Cas.456
1. Second Appeals Nos. 696 and 697 are two appeals arising out of a pre-emption suit. Admittedly the rules of the Muhammadan Law apply to the case. The property in question consisted of Zemindari shares in 5 khatas in one mahal, The 5 khatas are Nos. 17, 25, 49, 29 and 48. The plaintiff, the vendee and the vendor at the date of sale were all so sharers in the mahal. The plaintiff, however, owned shares in khatas Nos. 17, 25 and 49. The vendee had no shares in any of the 5 khatas. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled as being a co-sharer in khatas Nos. 17, 25 and 49 to a decree for pre-emption in respect to the whole of the shares sold in those 3 khatas.2. In regard to Nos. 29 and 48 he claimed that be stood on the same footing as the vendee and, therefore, under the law as administered in these Provinces he was entitled to a half of the property sold in these two khatas, The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for half of the property sold in each of the 5 khatas,...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Kallu and anr. Vs. Nadir Baksh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.527
1. This is an order, in our view, entirely without jurisdiction, an order which no Judge ought ever to make, and which there is nothing in the Code to justify. A decree was passed against a defendant, the result of which was that a house, which he says (although it is not yet proved) is his in severalty, was to be partitioned. He admits that he was served and had notice of the suit. It is true he was ill, but he has been vary candid in admitting that he came to the Court and the truth of the matter is that he did not realise that this house was included in the suit, and he seems to have captivated the heart of the Munsif and induced him to make an order setting aside the decree. The only justification for such an order is Order IX, Rule 13, under which the applicant must satisfy the Court (1) that the summons was not duly served, or (2) that he was prevented from sufficient cause from appearing. It is admitted that neither of these conditions occurred. The rule does not apply and the M...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Prasad Singh Vs. Mata Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All297; (1922)ILR44All44
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of some immovable property and mesne profits. It appears that Pirthi Pal Singh was the last male owner and he died leaving a widow, Musammat Gajraj Kunwar, and a daughter, Musammat Balraj Kunwar. After the death of the widow, Musammat Balraj Kunwar entered into possession of the property as a limited owner, In the year 1897 Suraj Pal Singh was the immediate reversioner. On the 15th of October, 1897, Musammat Balraj Kunwar executed a perpetual lease in favour of Mata Prasad and Debi Sahai, the present defendants, on payment of a nazrana of Rs. 2,000, which was paid in cash before the Sub-Registrar. The rent reserved was Rs. 1,255-5-2, which was exactly equal to the Government revenue to be paid by the lessor. This lease was attested by Suraj Pal Singh the immediate reversioner. On the 29th of October, 1901, Musammat Balraj Kunwar and Thakur Suraj Pal Singh jointly executed a deed of...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Mahadeo Prasad Singh Vs. Mata Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.721
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of some immoveable property and mesne profits. It appears that Pirthi Pal Singh was the last male owner and he died leaving; a widow, Musammat Gajraj Kunwar, and a daughter, Musammat Balraj Kunwar. After the death of the widow, Musammat Balraj Kunwar entered into possession of the property as a limited owner. In the year 1897 Suraj Pal Singh was the immediate reversioner. On the 15th of October 1897 Musammat Bilraj Kunwar executed a perpetual lease in favour of Mata Prasad and Debi Sahai, the present defendants, on payment of a nazrana of Rs. 2,000, which was paid in cash before the Sub Registrar. The rent reserved was Rs. 1,255-5-2, which was exactly equal to the Government revenue to be paid by the lessor. This lease was attested by Suraj Pal Singh, the immediate reversioner. On the 29th of October 1901 Musammat Balraj Kunwar and Thakur Suraj Pal Singh jointly executed a deed of gift of the leased proper...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Singh Vs. Ram Saroop and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All174; 64Ind.Cas.598
1. This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. It appears that one Jahangir obtained a decree against Nathu and Dalip on the 2nd of June 1913. The respondents Ram Sarup and Jai Dayal are subsequent purchasers of a part of the mortgaged property in execution of a simple money degree. On the 11th of December 1914 the decree-holder got an absolute decree for sale. After this Jahangir, the original decree-holder, sold the decree to Baldeo Singh, the present decree-bolder, appellant. On the 15th of July 1916 Baldeo Singh appellant applied for execution of his decree. On the 11th of August 1916 Bam Sarup and Jai Dayal, the auction-purchasers aforesaid, brought a suit for a declaration that the property purchased by them was not saleable and in the alternative that in any event they were entitled to a prior charge of nearly Rs. 2,000. The fact of the institution of this suit was brought to the notice of the Execution Court, and the Execution Court thereupon fixed a certain date b...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Mal and anr. Vs. Indarpal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All102
Lindsay, J 1. The principal question for discussion in this appeal is whether a deposit, of mortgage money made by the plaintiffs in this suit under the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act had the effect of stopping the running of interest.2. The facts may be stated as follows:The plaintiffs in the suit are mortgagees who held under a mortgage, dated the 7th day of September, 1913. The mortgage money was Rs. 2,900 and out of this sum Rs. 2,425 was left to redeem a prior mortgage which was executed on the 29th day of June, 1910.3. The suit was a suit for sale and the defendants first party were the mortgagors. The defendants second party were the prior mortgagees.4. The earlier mortgage of the 29th day of June, 1910, had been executed in favour of five persons, some of whom were minors.5. On the 24th day of September, 1913, the plaintiff, Kannu Mal, deposited Rs. 2,425 in court under the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. At the time of making...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Singh Vs. Ram Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.486
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The defendant vendee is also a co-sharer in the same village, but he does not own any share in the palti in which the share sold is situated. The Court of first instance decreed the suit and on appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff has entirely failed to prove the custom under which he is entitled to a right of pre emption as against the defendant vandee. The only evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim is an entry in the wajib-ul-arz, which says that in case of a transfer of property the right to claim pre-emption would be as follows :--'First to warisan ek jaddi qaribi, then to hissadars of the patti and then to so sharers in the village.' Accepting, as the lower Appellate Court has done, that this wajib-ul-arz records a custom of pre-emption, we are of opinion that the view taken by it that this is insufficient to prove the particular custom alleged by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Lal Gir Vs. Thakur Damber Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.617
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff based his claim on the strength of an entry in the wajib-ul-arz, under which in the case of a sale of a share the first right was given to biradaran karibi ekjaddi, and then to co-sharers in the thok and after them to co-sharers of other thoks, and it provided that in case the co-sharers of a village do not take, then the property could be sold to a stranger. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the village but is no relation of the vendor. The defendent-vendee has been found to be the own uncle of the vendor but he is not a co-sharer in the village. The Courts below have decreed the suit, holding that a custom of pre-emption prevails in this village and that the defendant not being a co-sharer, does not come under the first class of pre-emptors and, therefore, the plaintiff has a preferential right even as against him,2. The defendant has some up in appeal to this Court and on his behalf the findings of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »