Allahabad Court December 1922 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.
Abdul Baqi Khan Vs. Sadiq Ali and Abdul Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All290
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The three second appeals, Nos. 1371, 1372 and 1373, arise out of three preemption suits instituted by Abdul Baqi Khan against Sadiq Ali and others, in the year 1918. Two of them were instituted in the court: of the Munsif and the third in that of the Subordinate Judge.2. In order to understand the pleadings in the case, it is advisable to give a pedigree of the parties to the three appeals.AZMATULLAH| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Abdullah Ghulam Hashmat Ali Kariman. Three otheralia Hingan. Muhammad | | daughters.| | Sadiq Ali | | --------------------------- -------------------| | | | | || Anwar Ali. Sakina Bibi. Amina Bibi Abdul Baqi. Abdul Sattar.|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | |Abdul Karim Halim-un-nissa. Maliam Bibi.3. Musammat Sakina Bibi was married 1o Abdul Karim Khan. Some time ag...
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Chait Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All257; 71Ind.Cas.447
Ryves, J.1. This appeal raises a very difficult question of law in the conflict of jurisdiction between the Revenue and Civil Courts.2. The plaintiff, Chait Ram, brought this suit in the Court of the Munsif of Kanauj on the following allegations:(1) Plot No. 3404 was part of the occupancy holding of one Ghissa deceased. The plaintiff alleged himself to be Ghissa's first cousin, (that is, Ghissa's father's sister's son,) and he says, that during Ghissa's lifetime he was joint with him in cultivation and after Ghissa's death became the rightful owner and possessor of the entire agricultural holding. (2) Besides this, after the death of Ghissa, the plaintiff was recognized by all the Zemindars of the said cultivatory holding as its occupancy tenant, and Raghubar Dayal, the Lambardar of the village, testified to his being an occupancy tenant in the village papers before the officers concerned. (3) The plaintiff pays the rent of the holding in dispute to the Zemindars, and in this way also,...
Dr. Sadiq Ali Vs. Abdul Baqi Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All251; 71Ind.Cas.460
1. The three second appeals Nos. 1371, 1372 and 1373 arise out of three pre-emption suits instituted by Abdul Baqi Khan against Sadiq Ali and others in the year 1918. Two of them were instituted in the Court of the Munsif and the third in that of Subordinate Judge.2. In order to understand the pleadings in the case it is advisable to give a pedigree of the parties to the three appeals. AZMATULLAH |____________________________________________________________| | | | |Abdullah Ghulam Hashmat Kariman, Three alias Muhammad, Ali, otherHIngan, | | | daughters. | | Sadiq Ali. | | | _______________ | | | | | | Abdul Baqi. Abdul | __________________________________ Sattar. | | | | | Anwar Ali, Sakma BibI. Amena Bibi. ____________________ | ___________________________________ | | |Abdul Karim, Halimutinissa Mariam Bibi.Musammat Sakina Bibi was married to Abdul Karim Khan. Some time ago a house was purchased by Azmatullah and his son Abdullah alias Hingan in equal shares. Some years afterwards Sa...
Ambika Prasad and anr. Vs. Jhinak Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All211; (1923)ILR45All286
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The three execution appeals, Nos. 329, 330 and 271 of 1922, arise out of two pre-emption decrees passed by the lower appellate court on the 9th of April, 1921. It appears that one Damri Singh executed a deed of sale on the 20th of May, 1919, in respect of a portion of his landed property, in favour of Jhinak Singh and Udit Narain Singh. On the 18th of May, 1920, and the 21st of June, 1920, respectively, two suits were instituted by two Bets of plaintiffs, the co-sharers of Damri Singh the vendor, for the recovery of possession of the property conveyed by the sale-deed of the 20th of May, 1919, on the ground of preemption. Ram Baran was the plaintiff in one suit and Ambika Prasad, Ram Charittar Singh and Hubedar Singh were the plaintiffs in the second suit. The vendees resisted the claim by the denial of the custom of pre-emption set up in the two plaints The learned Munsif, in whose court the two suits were filed, came to the conclusion, on the evidenc...
B. Ambika Prasad and anr. Vs. B. Jhinak Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.321
1. The three execution appeals, Nos. 329, 330 and 271 of 1922, arise out of two pre-emption decrees passed by the lower Appellant Court on the 9th April 1921. It appears that one Damri Singh executed, a deed of sale on the 20th of May 1919 in respect of a portion of his landed property in favour of Jhinak Singh and Udit Narain Singh. On the 18th May 1920 and the 21st June 1920 respectively two suits were instituted by two sets of plaintiffs, the co-sharers of Damri Singh, the vendor, for the recovery of possession of the property conveyed by the sale-deed of the 20th May 1919 on the ground of pre-emption. Rambaran was the plaintiff in one suit and Ambika Prasad, Ram Charittar Singh, and Hubedar Singh were plaintiffs in the second suit. The vendees resisted the claim by the denial of the custom of pre-emption set up in the two plaints. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the two suits Mere filed, came to the conclusion on the evidence in the case that no custom of pre-emption prevailed i...
Babu Jhinak Singh and anr. Vs. Babu Ambika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All414; 71Ind.Cas.424
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by three persons, namely, Ambika Prasad, Ram Charatar Singh and Hobedar Singh on the 21st of June 1920 in the Court of the Munsif of Bansgaon for the recovery of possession of property conveyed by one Damri to the defendants-appellants on the 20th of May 1919 by a registered sale-deed on the ground of preemption. The claim was denied by the vendees and the learned Munsif dismissed the claim. Of the three plaintiffs, Ambika Prasad alone preferred the appeal and said that he was preferring it both on his own behalf and on behalf of his co-plaintiffs, Ram Charatar Singh and Hobedar Singh. Before the appeal came to be heard Hobedar Singh died. The fact of the death of Hobedar Singh was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge nor an application made to bring the legal representatives of Hobedar Singh on the record prior to the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was heard as if Hobedar Singh was alive and a decree was passed on the 9...
Jhinak Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Baran Singh and Damri Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All260; 83Ind.Cas.771
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, Rambaran Singh, on the 18th May 1920, for the recovery of possession of certain property conveyed by the sale-deed of the 20th of May 1919, executed by Damri Singh, in favour of the defendants-appellants on the ground of preemption. The claim was resisted on various grounds. One of the objections taken to the claim was that no custom of preemption obtained in the village in which the property in suit is situate. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. On appeal by the pre-emptor, Rambaran Singh, the learned District Judge took a different view of the evidence and decreed the claim.2. The vendees have come up in second appeal to this Court and contend that the evidence in support of the alleged custom is insufficient to establish the custom set up in the plaint. We have on the record the kaifiyat mahtavi of 1833. It shows that the village was waste up to 1220 Fasli when it was settled with a man of the nam...
Emperor Vs. Hori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All281
Walsh, J.1. The history of this matter has been very ably sot out in the admirable and thorough judgment of M. Mushtaq Ali Khan, Magistrate, first class, of Bareilly who tried the original case. The applicant before me has been convicted of selling night-soil as Sanitary Inspector of the Pilibhit Municipality, and while it was his, duty, as such Sanitary Inspector, to see that the work of transport and deposit of the night-soil was properly done, he is alleged to have sold three cartloads for about Rs. 200 in all, and the mere statement that a Sanitary Inspector of a municipal hoard could do that, behind the back of his employers, and pocket the money, without committing a criminal offence, is calculated, at first sight, to cause surprise. One substantial point, however, has been ably argued on his behalf in revision, as to whether the night-soil which this man sold could be described, in any way, as the property of the municipal board who are the complainants, so as to constitute an o...
B. Tulsi Prasad Sahai Vs. Ramraj Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.308
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act brought in the Revenue Court. The defence pleaded was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the parties, that the land in dispute belonged to another village and that the defendant had been paying rent to the landlord of that village. The First Court came to the conclusion that the land in dispute appertained to the village of the plaintiff and decreed the claim. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has come to an opposite conclusion, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal and his contention is that no appeal lay to the District Judge but that the appeal, if any, lay to the Commissioner under Serial No. 29 of the Fourth Schedule to the Tenancy Act. The learned Vakil for the appellant has drawn any attention to Section 198 of the Tenancy Act which deals with cases where the def...
Amar Deo Pande and ors. Vs. Gaya Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All408; 71Ind.Cas.393
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs for recovery of a certain sum of money which they had paid for the defendants. The facts are briefly as follows: Two persons, Tulshi and Gaya Prasad, executed a deed of mortgage in favour of one Ram Saran Singh on the 4th of July 1903. Under the terms of this mortgage each of the executants was liable to pay a definite amount out of the total consideration of Rs. 295. On the 17th of August 1907 the mortgagee got a preliminary decree for sale against both the mortgagors. This decree was made final on the 9th of October 1909 against both the judgment-debtors. The property was put up for sale and Tulshi having died his sons, the present plaintiffs, paid up the amount of the decree and thus saved their own property and the person of the defendants from further liability. They have now sued for recovery of the amount payable by the defendants. The claim was decreed by the Court of first instance but has been dismissed by the lower Appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »