Allahabad Court July 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.
Ram Baran and ors. Vs. Bansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All185
Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The question in issue is whether the plaintiff claiming pre-emption has proved the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the village in suit. The entries in the wajib-ul-arzes drawn up at the two settlements of 1833 and 1860 are prima facie records of an existing custom. There were at least three co-sharers in the former year arid a number of co-sharers in the latter year. The main contention before us is that this evidence is sufficiently rebutted by a note recorded at the time of the settlement of I860, to the effect that this r'Uage had been waste or desolate up to the year 1829. We do not think this is sufficient to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff. We dismiss this appeal with costs....
Bansi Vs. Ram Baran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All150; 75Ind.Cas.751
1. The question in issue is whether the plaintiff claiming pre-emption has proved the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the village in suit. The entries in the wajtb-ul-arzes drawn up at the two Settlements of 1833 ana 1860 are prima facie, records of an existing custom. There were at, least three co-sharers in the former year and a number of co-sharers in the latter year. The main contention before us is that this evidence is sufficiently rebutted by a note recorded at the time of the Settlement of 1860, to the effect that this village had been waste or desolate up to the year 1829. We do not think this is sufficient to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff. We dismiss this appeal with costs. ...
Emperor Vs. Angnu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All109
Walsh, J.1. This is one of the most remarkable cases under Section 110 which' has ever come under my notice. There are various reasons why I say that. In the first place, the procedure which has been adopted from first to last, appears to me to be an abuse of the section. Twelve men were charged together or notices were issued against them together under this section, I will not say, without anything upon the evidence seriously connecting them, but with a very (sic) colouring of evidence and a vague, general and hearsay description connecting them together as partly ringleaders of a gang, partly notorious dacoits and partly habitual receivers. The police, in support of this case, called a variety of witnesses of every sort and description to establish the character which they sought to prove, amounting altogether to 76 in number, and having little or nothing in common except the fact to which most of them spoke,--(a) that they lived at least 8 miles away from the village of the defenda...
Muzaffar-ul-hasan Vs. Amir-ud-dIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All107
Gokul Prasad and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a certain deed of waqf,' purporting to have, been executed by Musammat Ishrat Begam on the 10th of August, 1910, was valid and enforceable. The lady died on the 30th of August, 1910. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the deed of waqf was obtained from the lady at a time when she was unwell and unable to form an independent judgment. In. fact, it is suggested, that she was not then in her proper senses and did not understand what she was doing. The courts below found that the lady understood what she was doing, but the deed of waqf was invalid inasmuch as there was no real intention to make a dedication for religious or charitable purposes.2. The dead of waqf provides that the lady shall be the first mulawalli of the property dedicated and that she shall have, power to apply the income of the property dedicated to her own use as long as she was alive, and, if there was a surplus, to appl...
Gur NaraIn Vs. Lallu Singh and Harbans Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All115
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott, Gokul Prasad, Kanhaiya Lal and Sulaiman, JJ.1. The only point referred to the Full Bench for consideration is the question of the validity or otherwise of a deed of gift, dated the 29th of January, 1894, executed by Musammat Tulsha Kunwar in favour of her only daughter, Musammat Naraini Kunwar. This document recites that Musammat Naraini Kunwar was her sole issue and the donor wished to give the entire property in seven villages to her; but that, inasmuch as during her life-time she had also to provide for her own maintenance and other necessary expenses, and it was reprehensible and forbidden for her to receive any benefit or to take anything from her daughter, she considered it proper to get the name of her daughter recorded over four villages at once, but to remain in possession of the other three villages for her life, meeting the expenses of her maintenance and other necessary expenses from the profits thereof. But all the seven villages were compris...
Angnoo Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All35; 71Ind.Cas.865
Walsh, J.1. This is one of the most remarkable cases under Section 110 which has ever come under my notice. There are various reasons why I say that. In the first place, the procedure which has been adopted from first to last appears to me to be an abuse of the section. Twelve men were charged together, or notices were issued against them together, under this section, I will not say without anything upon the evidence seriously connecting them, but with a very superficial colouring of evidence and a vague, general and hearsay description connecting them together as partly ring-leaders of a gang, partly notorious dacoits and partly habitual receivers. The Police in support of this case called a variety of witnesses of every sort and description to establish the character which they sought to prove, amounting altogether to 76 in number, and having little or nothing in common except the fact to which most of them spoke: (a) that they lived at least 8 miles away from the village of the defe...
AmiruddIn and anr. Vs. Muzaffar-ul-hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All55; 69Ind.Cas.641
1. The question for consideration in thin appeal is whether a certain deed of waqf, purporting to have been executed by Musammat Ishrat Begam, on the 10th August 1910, wag valid and enforceable. The lady died on the 30th of August 1910. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the deed of waqf was obtained from the lady at a time when she was unwell and unable to form an independent judgment, In fact, it is suggested that she was not then in her proper senses and did not understand what she was doing. The Courts below found that the lady understood what she was doing, bat the deed of waqf was invalid inasmush as there was no real intention to make a dedication for religious or charitable purposes.2. The deed of waqf provides that the lady shall be the first mutawalli of the property dedicated and that she shall have power to apply the income of the property dedicated to her own nee as long as she was alive, and, if there was a surplus, to apply the same to the purposes specified in any...
Lallu Singh Vs. Gur NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All467; 68Ind.Cas.798
1. The only point referred to the Full Bench for consideration is the question of the validity or otherwise of a deed of gift, dated the 29th of January 1894, executed by Musammat Tulsha Kunwar, in favour of her only daugter, Musammat Naraini Kunwar. This document recites that Musammat Naraini Kunwar was her sole issue, and the donor wished to give the entire property in seven villages to her; but that, inasmuch as during her lifetime she had also to provide for her own maintenance and other necessary expenses, and it was reprehensive and forbidden for her to receive any benefit or to take anything from her daughter, she considered it proper to get the name of her daughter recorded over four villages at once, but to remain in possession of the other three villages for her life, meeting the expenses of her maintenance and other necessary expenses from the profits thereof. But all the seven villages were comprised in the gift, and it was stated that she had no longer any claim or right l...
Gopi Koeri Vs. Musammat Raj Roop Koer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1922
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.191
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 738 hhasra which is situated in Mauza Shukulpura outside the skirts of Benares City. The village Shukulpura was granted to Mussammat Asmedh Kunwar by the father of the plaintiff on the 9th of April 1889 by an agreement which provided that she was to hold the same in her possession and enjoy the profits thereof for her maintenance during her lifetime without any power of alienation.2. While Musammat Asmedh Kunwar was so in possession of that village, she granted a perpetual lease of the plot in dispute to Gopal, Ganga and Gopi for a premium ofRs. 100 on an agreement that the lessees would pay her a rent of Rs. 12 per annum and be entitled to use the land for planting a grove, constructing buildings or for any other purposes they liked. On the strength of that lease a grove, consisting mostly of guava trees, was planted over the said land by the lessees and a ridge or mud wall was built around it for the protection of the ...
Lachmi NaraIn and ors. Vs. Parsotam Das Kolapuri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All99
Ryves, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. Jamna Prasad, Gharib Das and Khedu Ram were three separate Hindu brothers. The sons and grandsons of Jamna Prasad (now plaintiffs respondents) and the sons of Gharib Das (now defendants appellants), combined together to bring a suit against the sons of Khedu Ram. They were unsuccessful both in the trial court and on appeal in this Court, and their suit and appeal were dismissed with costs.2. Shortly afterwards, dissensions arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the decree-holders (defendants in that suit) siding with the present defendants, recovered the whole of the costs from the plaintiffs.3. The plaintiffs now sue to recover from the defendants half of the costs, the whole of which they had to pay. The main defence was that the defendants had paid their half share. This was disbelieved by both the lower courts, who decreed the suit.4. In the courts below, although the plea was not taken specifically in the written stateme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »