Allahabad Court December 1923 Judgments
Maulvi Sharif Ahmad Alvee Vs. Muhammad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-30-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.612
1. This appeal raises a somewhat difficult question of interpretation in connection with the provisions of a certain wajib-ul-arz relating to pre-emption.2. According to what is stated in the, wajib-ul-arz, on the occasion of a transfer, the first right to take the property is given to a class which is defined in the wajib-ul-arz as 'shur-kayan shikmi.' It is provided that in case the members of the first class decline to accept the offer of the property then the offer is to be made to the second class of persons who are described as 'digar malikan thok o mahalke' A great deal of controversy has arisen regarding the meaning to be attached to the words 'shurkayan shikmi.' We have been referred to a decision of a Bench of this Court reported in Abdul Shakur v. Mendai 23 A. 260 : A.W.N. (1901) 63. In that case it was sought to attribute to the expression 'hissedaran shikmi' a meaning derived from blood relationship. In other words, the suggestion was that hissedaran shikmi were people who...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Nath Vs. Muhammad Ubaid-ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All586; (1924)ILR46All227
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, in a second appeal. It appears that on the 25th of June, 1886, Durga Prasad and others executed a document by which they transferred certain property to Qudrat-ul-lah Khan. The question that has arisen is-whether on the terms of the document the transaction that was entered into was an out-and-out sale, with liberty to re-acquire the property on a given date, or whether it was a mortgage. For the purposes of this application we are treating the subject matter of the suit as being of the value of Rs. 10,000 and upwards and the subject matter of the appeal as being of the value of Rs. 10,000 and upwards : but it is to be noticed that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who appears for the respondents, is not able to accept the figures contained in the affidavit which has been put before the Court today by the applicants; and we express, and need express on this occasion no opinion as to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mulani Vs. Maula Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All260
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to set aside a deed of gift purporting to have been executed by her in favour of the defendant on the 11th of February, 1914. Her allegation was that the defendant practised fraud on the plaintiff and caused her to execute the deed of gift by the exercise of undue influence over her. The precise nature of the fraud was not specified, but it was alleged that certain misrepresentations had been made by the defendant to obtain her consent. It was further alleged that in spite of the deed of gift, the plaintiff had continued in possession of the house comprised in the gift.2. The defendant denied that any fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation had been committed. He pleaded that ha had been in possession of the house from the date of the gift and spent Rs. 150 in making improvements of the house in question and paid Rs. 150 to Bulaqi Das who had purchased the rights of Musammat Aliman, the daughter of the plaintiff, who was found to be the joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Ram Vs. Kunj Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All398
Lindsay, J.1. This is a reference by the Local Government under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division soliciting the opinion of the Court regarding two questions which were raised originally in a suit brought in the Court1 of the Assistant Collector, Kashipur, under the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act.2. The plaintiffs in that suit were Kunj Behari Lal and Har Kishen Das and the claim was for. recovery of profits due in respect of a certain share in a mahal, for the years 1324, 1325 and 1326 Fasli. According to the plaint the profits for these years became due on (the 1st of August in each of the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. There Were five defendant's to the suit, the first of whom Gobind Ram is the lambardar of the mahal. The fifth defendant was Gulab Singh, one of the co-sharers. The case for the plaintiffs was that on the 26th of July, 1920, they had taken from the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants an assignment of the profits for the years in su...
Tag this Judgment!B. Bishambhar Nath Vs. Muhammad Abaidullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.213
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in a second appeal. It appears that on the 25th of June 1886 Durga Prasad and others executed a document by which they transferred certain property to Qudratullah Khan. The question that has arisen is whether on the terms of the document the transaction that was entered into was an out and out sale with liberty to re-acquire the property on a given date, or whether it was a mortgage. For the purposes of this application we are treating the subject matter of the suit as being of the value )of Rs. 10,000 and upwards and the subject matter of the appeal as being of the value of is. 10,000 and upwards: but it is to be noticed that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who appears for the respondents, is not able to accept the fig-ires contained in the affidavit which has been put before the Court to-day by the applicants; we express, and need express on this Decision no opinion as to the real value either of the suit or of the appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Mulani Vs. Maula Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All370; 78Ind.Cas.222
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to set aside a deed of gift purporting to have been executed by her in favour of the defendant on the 11th of February 1914. Her allegation was that the defendant practised fraud on the plaintiff and caused her to exeoute the deed of gift by the exercise of undue influence over her. The precise nature of the fraud was not specified, but it was alleged that certain misrepresentations had been made by the defendant to obtain her consent. It was further alleged that, in spite of the deed of gift, the plaintiff had continued in possession of the house comprised in the gift.2. The defendant denied that any fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation had been committed. He pleaded that he had been in possession of the house from the date of the gift and spent Rs. 150 in making improvements of the house in question and paid Rs. 150 to Bulaqi Das who had purchased the rights of Musammat Aliman, the daughter of the plaintiff, who was found to be the joint ...
Tag this Judgment!Amla Hand, and ors. Vs. Nandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All318; 78Ind.Cas.145
1. This references raises a somewhat difficult question but, as we understand the matter, we are asked to say whether the law relating to pre-emption, as laid down in a ruling of Mr. Giles, officiating Commissioner of Kumaon, in the case of Datt Bam v. Baghunath, decided on the llth July 1892, is or is not to be applied to the case with which we are concerned.2. It seems that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner sitting in appeal have differentiated this case from the one which was considered by Mr. Giles in the ruling just referred to.3. Taking the law to have been correcty laid down in Mr. Giles' judgment, we find it stated as follows :For the purposes of pre-emption the asl village and the laga village are one. A hissedar of a laga village' has no right of pre-emption against a purchaser who is a hissedar of the asl village.4. If this ruling is to be applied literally to the facts of the case with which we are now dealing, it seems to us that the claim of the pre-emptor...
Tag this Judgment!Khudaijat-ul-kubra and anr. Vs. Amina Khatun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All388; (1924)ILR46All250
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants in this case, we are clearly of opinion that the appeal must fail.2. The relevant facts to be stated are as follows:In the year 1882 one Muhammad Rahmat Ali executed an agreement whereby he undertook to pay to his daughter-in-law Musammat Amina Khatun a sum of Rs. 15 a month for food and clothing. This payment was to be made to her during her life-time.3. In order to secure the performance of this undertaking, Saiyid Rahmat Ali hypothecated a 5 biswas muafi share in the village named Phondapur and charged this property with the allowance which he had contracted to give his daughter-in-law. It was distinctly provided by this agreement that if Rahmat Ali failed to pay the said monthly allowance of Rs. 15 any month, the lady was to be entitled to take possession of the property which was charged and to realize the income thereof under her own supervision and to spend the same for her food and clothing.4. Paus...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Banarsi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All381; (1924)ILR46All254; 77Ind.Cas.829
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by Government against an order of acquittal by a first class Magistrate, dated the 31st of August, 1923. The whole case turns upon the question of unlawful possession of some cocaine found in a certain house in the city of Allahabad. There has been a previous prosecution and an acquittal. One Bishan, together with his sister Musammat Kishan Piari, and Ganesh, who is believed to be his maternal uncle, were charged with the wrongful possession of this cocaine. In that case the present defendant, one Banarsi, who is said to he 60 years of age and is also believed to be related to Bishan, although he strenuously denies it, gave evidence for the defence, and his statement on that occasion has been used against him in this case. In the order of acquittal, the Magistrate who tried the previous case directed that proceedings against Banarsi should be instituted. It was natural, therefore, and right that the case should be heard and disposed of by anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Khudajiatul Kubra and anr. Vs. Musammat Amina Khatun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.413
1. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants in this case we are clearly of opinion that the appeal must fail.2. The relevant facts to be stated are as follows:3. In the year 1882 one Muhammad Rahmat Ali executed an agreement whereby he undertook to pay to his daughter-in-law Musammat Amina Khatun a sum of Rs. 15 a month for food and clothing. This payment was to be made to her during her life-time.4. In order to secure the performance of this undertaking Saiyid Rahmat Ali hypothecated a 5 biswas muafi share in the village named Phondapur and charged this property with the allowance which he had contracted to give his daughter-in-law. It was distinctly provided by this agreement that if Rahmat Ali failed to pay the said monthly allowance of Rs. 15 any month, the lady was to be entitled to take possession of the property which was charged and to realise the income thereof under her own supervision and to spend the same for her food and clothing.5. Pausing here, it is clear be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »