Allahabad Court February 1924 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 Nazir and ors. Vs. Muhammad Sulaiman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All424
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The appellants vendees were defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent, Sheikh Muhammad Sulaiman, to pre-empt a sale of property in two villages, Rafipur and Khwajapur, made in their favour by the third defendant Salika Bibi.2. This lady is a first cousin of the plaintiff and she and the plaintiff are co-sharers in the same mahals in the two villages. The purchasers have shares in these villages but in different mahals. The plaintiff relied upon the custom set out in the wajib-ul-arzes prepared at the last revision of settlement in or about the year 1884. (The district is permanently settled.)3. It is admitted that since these wajib-ul-arzes, have been prepared there has been a perfect partition of both the villages in suit and it is this fact which has been relied upon by the defendants appellants in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim. It is common ground that no fresh wajib-ul-arzes were prepared after partition, and so it was contende...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Raghubar Dayal and anr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All427
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a deed of sale executed by the first defendant, Raghubar Dayal, in favour of the second defendant, Mr. Thomas Singlehurst, on the 28th of July, 1919, and registered on the 9th of August, 1919, was null and void and, ineffectual, on the ground that the previous consent of the military authorities had not been obtained, and that the transfer was detrimental to the interests of the military officers in the Meerut cantonment.2. The reason for the suit is indicated in paragraph 6 of the plaint.3. Under Section 11(c) of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act of 1902 (Act II of 1902), which was in force at the time the suit was brought, no notice under Section 6 of the Act can issue in respect of a house in Cantonments occupied by the owner; in other words, where the owner of such a house is i...
Fazal-ud-dIn Vs. Muhammad Jan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All514
Lindsay, J.1. The points which arise for decision in this appeal have practically been settled by my judgment in F.A.F.O. No. 108 of 1923 decided on 28th of January, 1924 (3). The facts with which we are concerned here are briefly as follows:There was litigation in the year 1915 between Shaikh Fazal-ud-din, the plaintiff in the present case, and two defendants, Nawab Ali and Musammat Bilauri Bibi, who were husband and wife.2. It appears that Fazal-ud-din is the son of Nawab Ali's sister.3. It further appears that Nawab All's daughter is married to Shaikh Fazal-ud-din.4. The dispute in the court of the Munsif was with regard to a family house and the suit terminated in a compromise by which a half share of this house was awarded to the plaintiff and the remaining half share to the defendants. It was agreed under the terms of the compromise that if either party wanted to transfer his share in the property, an offer was to be made to the other party in the first instance in order that he ...
Muhammad Nazeer Alias Bhikhai and ors. Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Sulaiman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.659
1. The appellants vendees were defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, Sheikh Muhammad Sulai-man, to pre-empt a sale of property in two villages, Bafipur and Khwajpur, made in their favour by the third defendant, Salika Bibi.2. This lady is a first cousin of the plaintiff and she and the plaintiff are co-sharers in the same mahals in the two villages. The purchasers have shares in these villages but in different mahals. The plaintiff relied upon the custom set out in the wajib ul-arzes prepared at the last revision of Settlement in or about the year 1884. (The District is permanently settled).3. It is admitted that, since these wajib-ul-arzes have been prepared, there has been a perfect partition of both the villages in suit and it is this fact which has been relied upon by the defendants-appellants in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim. It is common ground that no fresh wajib-ul-arzes were prepared after partition and so it was contended that the custom had been a...
Raghubar Dayal and anr. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All415; 78Ind.Cas.642
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the Secretary of State for India in Council in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a deed of sale executed by the first defendant, Baghubar Dayal, in favour of the second defendant, Mr. Thomas Singlehurst, on the 28th July 1919 and registered on the 9th August 1919 was null and void and ineffectual on the ground that the previous consent of the Military authorities had not been obtained, and that the transfer was detrimental to the interests of the Military officers in the Meerut Cantonment.2. The reason for the suit is indicated in para. 6 of the plaint.3. Under Section 11 (c) of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act of 1902 (Act II of 1902) which was in force at the time the suit was brought, no notice under Section 6 of the Act can issue in respect of a house in Cantonment occupied by the owner; in other words, where the owner of such a house is in aotual occupati...
B. Gauri Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. Pt. Sheo Nandan Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.911
Lindsay, J.1. The material facts to be considered in this case are as follows:2. On the 8th October 1904 Bachu Singh, the defendant No. 2, executed a simple mortgage-deed in favour of the first defendant Sheo Nandan Misir.3. Admittedly, the property which was hypothecated under this document was joint family property.4. On the 22nd September 1916, with the object of satisfying the debt which was due under this earlier mortgage, Bachu Singh executed a mortgage with possession in favour of the same mortgagee. It was recited in this deed that the sum of Rs. 12,265 was owing on the earlier mortgage. A further sum of Rs. 460 was recited to have been taken in cash at the time of the execution of the mortgage for necessary expenses and for the completion of the document. The total mortgage-debt secured upon this second mortgage was thus a sum of Rs. 12,725.5. The suit out of which this appeal arises has been brought by the son and two grandsons of Bachu Singh for the purpose of avoiding this ...
Mirza Mohammad Jan and ors. Vs. Shaikh Fazal Uddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.482
Lindsay, J.1. The points which arise for decision in this appeal have practically been settled by my judgment in First Appeal from Order No. 108 of 1923 decided on 28th of January 1924 Basdeo Rai v. Jhagru Rai 83 Ind. Cas. 390 : 22 A.L.J. 265 : 46 A. 333 : (1924) A.I.R.(A) 400,The facts with which we are concerned here are briefly as follows:2. There was litigation in the year 1915 between Shaikh Fazal Uddin, the plaintiff in the present case, and two defendants, Nawab Ali and Musammat Bilauri Bibi, who were husband and wife.3. It appears that Fazal Uddin is the son of Nawab Ali's sister.4. It further appears that Nawab Ali's daughter is married to Shaikh Fazal Uddin.5. The dispute in the Court of the Munsif was with regard to a family house and the suit terminated in a compromise by which a half share of this house was awarded to the plaintiff and the remaining half share to the defendants. It was agreed-under the terms of the compromise that if either party wanted to transfer his sha...
Daya Ram Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All206; 79Ind.Cas.394
Daniels, J.1. In this case the father of the appellant sold the house in suit to the defendant Shankar Das in 1912 by an unregistered sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 90. Shankar Das mortgaged the house and the mortgagees who are the respondents in this case obtained a decree against Shankar Das on their mortgage. The plaintiff brought the present suit for a declaration that the house still belongs to him and is not liable to sale under the decree against Shankar Das. His contention was that Shankar Das's possession was purely permissive. On the evidence both Courts have rejected the plaintiff's case. The sole question urged in support of the appeal to this Court is that the sale-deed in favour of Shankar Das being unregistered was inadmissible in evidence even for the purpose of showing the nature of Shankar Das's possession. It may be noted that the Court below has merely used it to corroborate other evidence given by the defendants which the Court has believed. The property having been of...
Faqir Mohammad Vs. Bhaggu Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All244
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Fakir Mohammad against the dismissal of his suit for arrears of rant against the defendants under the following circumstances. The three defendants Bhaggu Khan, Abid Khan and Yakub Khan are cultivating the plot in suit probably from the original occupancy tanant under a sub-lease for five years the term of which had not expired. During the pendency of the sub-lease the occupency tenant gave a lease of the same land to the plaintiff Fakir Mohammad. This lease was contrary to the provisions of Section 35 of the Tenancy Act and it is not now disputed that it was illegal. The plaintiff however got one of the three subtenants Abid Khan to execute a kabuliyat in his favour. In this Court be relies on Section 116 of the Evidence Act and urges that Abid Khan having executed a kabuliy at in his favour is precluded from denying his title and therefore even though the suit might be dismissed against the other defendants it should have been decreed ...
Ali HusaIn and ors. Vs. Syed Mazahir Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All477; 79Ind.Cas.134
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and the connected appeal Nos. 1247 and 1248 of 1922, are concerned with only one question, namely, whether the evidence that was adduced in the Court of first instance by 'the appellants should have been held to be sufficient to prove the custom set up by the appellants, namely, one in the village of Datiana, by which a ryot could transfer not only the materials of his house but also the site over which the house stood.2. The case has been ably argued on both sides. Mr. Agha Haidar, has taken a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal. He argued, on the authority of a sentence to be found in the case of Muarmmad Kamil v. Imtias Fatima 4 Ind. Cas. 457 : 31 A. 557 : 10 C.L.J. 29 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1210 : 14 C.W.N. 59 : 19 M.L.J. 697 : 13 O.C. 183 : 36 I.A. 210 (P.C.), that a question of custom was a question of fact and this Court could not go into it in second appeal. It appears that in the case before their Lordships of the Privy Council a custom had bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »