Allahabad Court April 1923 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.
Muhammad Siddiq Ali Khan Vs. Anwarul Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.389
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:2. Ibrahim Ali Khan owned property some of which is in suit. He died leaving three sons and three daughters one of whom was Musammat Batul-un-nissa who was entitled to 1-9th of the property owned by Ibrahim Ali Khan on his death. She died leaving a son, Anwarul Hasan, who become entitled to 2-3rds of the 1-9th share inherited by his mother. He sold his share to Muhib Ali who sold to Muzhar Hussain who in turn sold to the plaintiff. This is a suit by the plaintiff for declaration and for possession of the property. The defendant No.1 is Anwarul Hassain the transferor of the property. Defendants Nos. 2 to 9 are the persons who represent the sons and daughters of Ibrahim Ali Khan.3. Defendants Nos. 10 to 25 are subsequent transferees from the sons of these defendants Nos. 23 to 25 are wards under the Court of Wards. Defendants Nos. 23 to 25 alone contested the suit, on the ground that the notice required by Section 54 of the Cour...
Chhajju Vs. Alam Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All559
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. Two points have been discussed before us in this second appeal. The first point is whether the courts below were right in holding that the wajib- ul-arz of 1863 was evidence of a custom.2. It is contended before us that, because the wajib-ul-arz in question is so framed as to refer to matters other than preemption, it ought not to be treated as a record of custom but merely as a record of contract.3. It has no doubt been held in a number of cases which have been consistently followed, that if a wajib-ul-arz contains matters which could not possibly be the subject of a custom, then the ordinary presumption that the wajib-ul-arz is a record of custom is overturned. That principle is laid down in the case of Fazal Husain v. Muhammad Sharif (1914) I.L.R, 36 All. 471. It was also enunciated in another case Surajbali Singh v. Mohammad Nasir (1918) 16 A.L.J. 879. In this latter case, we may observe, the wajib-ul-arz upon which reliance was placed, in addition to pr...
Bohra Shiam Sundar Lal and anr. Vs. Sri Thakur Radhika Raman Bihariji ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All561
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. These are appeals by, a defendant arising out of two suits for pre-emption.2. On the 11th of June, 1919, defendant No. 2 executed a sale-deed in favour of Jamuna Prasad, defendant No. 1, of a certain share in Mahaban. This was followed by another sale-deed, dated the 11th of May, 1920, of another share in the same village. On. the 12th of June, 1920, a suit for pre-emption was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents to pre-empt the first sale. After the written statement in that suit had been filed, Jamuna Prasad executed a deed of gift on the 17th of August, 1920, under which he transferred the share sold under the previous two sale-deeds in favour of the idol, defendant appellant. It was after this transfer that a second suit to pre-empt the second sale was filed on the 29th of November, 1920. Subsequently, on the 14th of February, 1921, Muhammad Siddiq-ul-Husain, one of the original vendors, executed a deed which purported to be a deed of gift in favour ...
Nannhu and ors. Vs. Roshan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All121; 74Ind.Cas.112
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the learned Munsif of Shikohabad granting permission to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1, with permission to file a fresh suit. The application for withdrawal was made after a considerable amount of evidence had been recorded on both sides. The reasons given for the application were two (1) The non-joinder of a person who is alleged by the defendants to be a co-sharer in the holding in dispute to be a necessary party(2)The fact that a Patwari whom the plaintiff wished to produce as rebutting witness had been won over by the other side.2. For these reasons the plaintiff alleged that the suit was liable to fail and he asked for permission to withdraw it as stated above.3. The second reason was admittedly not a proper reason for allowing withdrawal of the suit. The learned Munsif. however, has not acted on this reason; he has acted on the first reason, saying that in his opinion mis-joinder of parties was a formed d...
Ram Das Rai and ors. Vs. Sheikh Abdul Gafoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All146; 74Ind.Cas.297
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge has decreed it. The plaintiffs, in order to prove the custom alleged, relied on an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1883 which prima facie raised a presumption of the existence of the custom. To rebut this evidence the defendants proved the fact that in the year 1840 there was a single proprietor in this mahal, and, further, that no suit for preemption had ever been brought between the years 1840 and 1882. The learned District Judge has considered all the circumstances in the case and has weighed the evidence. In our opinion the circumstance of there being a single proprietor in 1840 does not necessarily rebut the presumption of custom raised by the entry in the waiib-ul-arz of 1882; as the learned Judge has pointed out, it was admitted in the written statement, that there had been numerous is transfers and, therefore, it was possible t...
Sri Thakur Radhika Raman Bihariji Maharaj and anr. Vs. Bohra Shiam Sun ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All526; 74Ind.Cas.382
1. These are appeals by a defendant arising out of two suits for pre-emption.2. On the nth of June 1919 defendant No.2 Executed a sale-deed in favour of Jamuna Prasad, defendant No.1, of a certain share in Mahaban. This was followed by another sale-deed, dated the nth of May 1920, of another share in the same village. On the 12th of June 1920 a suit for pre-emption was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents to pre-empt the first sale.3. After the written statement in that suit had been, filed Jamuna Prasad executed a deed of gift on the. 17th of August 1920 under which he transferred the shares sold Under the previous two sale deeds in favour of the idol defendant-appellant. It was after this transfer that a second suit, to pre-empt the second sale was filed on the 29th of November 1920 Subsequently, on the 14th of February 1921, Muhammad Saddiq-ul-Hussain, one of the original vendors, executed a deed which purported to be a deed of gift in favour of the defendant-appellant, The day ...
Alama Chand Vs. Chhajju
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All530; 74Ind.Cas.339
1. Two points have been discussed before us in this second appeal The first point is whether the Courts below were right in holding that the waj b-ul-arz of 1863 was evidence of a custom.2. It is contended before us that because the wajib-ul-arz it question is so framed as to refer to matters other than pre-emption it ought not to foe treated as a record of custom but merely as a record of contract.3. It has no doubt been held in a number of cases which have been consistently followed that, if a wajib-ul-arz contains matters which could not possibly be the subject of a custom then the ordinary presumption that the wajib-ul-arz is a record of custom is overturned. That principle is laid down in the case of Fazal Hussain, v. Muhammad Sharif 24 Ind. Cas 464 : 36 A. 471 : 12 A.L.J. 800. It was also enunciated in another case reported as Surajbali S ngh v. Mohammad Nisar 48 Ind. Cas 220 : 16 A.L.J. 879. In this latter case We may observe the wajib-ul-arz upon which reliance was placed in ad...
Devi Prasad Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All554
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision from an order of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad. The point for decision before him was whether a deposit in a provident fund, which so long as the subscriber was in service was a compulsory deposit within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Provident Funds Act (Act IX of 1897) became attachable by a creditor the moment the subscriber retired. The subscriber, in this case, has retired but has not yet drawn his deposit. The learned Judge of the court below has followed the decision in Veerchand Nowla v. B.B. and C.I. Railway (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 259 and has held that the deposit is not attachable. The learned Judges took the view that 'compulsory deposit' in the Act was a term with a technical meaning and that a deposit which came within the definition remained a compulsory deposit until it was actually drawn out. The subscriber's retirement made no difference to it is nature. The same view as was held in Bombay has been taken by th...
Emperor Vs. Nanhu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All557
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. Nanhu and Bhagga were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bareilly under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code with reference to the death of one Tika, and under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code for administering dhatura poison in the food served to Gopal and Raghbar. They were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently. They appealed from jail and a learned Judge of this Court directed that notice should issue to the appellants to show cause why they should not be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for poisoning Tika and why their sentence should not be enhanced or other suitable order passed. Notice has been served but no appearance has been made. The facts of the case admit of no dispute, On the 26th of May, 1922, these two accused, who are kurmis by caste but who represented themselves to be Banias, made friends with three young men Tika, Gopal and Raghbar, who w...
Musammat Ballo Vs. Ram Kishan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All49; 81Ind.Cas.490
This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a house and some landed property with mesne profits. The plaintiff, who is one of the daughters of Kesrimal deceased, alleged, that on the death of Kesrimal, his estate was inherited by his widow, Musammat Soliani, who died on the 6th of May 1918, and that the plaintiff being the poorer of the two daughters, was entitled to inherit the estate in preference to Mvsammat Sunder, the mother of Ram Krishna, the principal defendant. On behalf of the defendant, it was pleaded that; he had been adopted by Kesrimal in his lifetime some 24 years ago and that there was a custom prevailing among the Agarwala Vaishas to adopt a daughter's son, and, further, that the present claim was barred by time.Both the Courts below have found that the adoption did in fact take place and have also accepted the defendant's evidence as establishing the existence of the alleged custom. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal and urg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »