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.
Kedar Nath, Durga Prasad Vs. Bishwanath, Lakshmi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All510; (1924)ILR46All417
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. We think that this order has arisen out of a misunderstanding. In some ways the defendants are to blame. If they wanted to pin the plaintiffs down. to a statement on oath of the relevant documents in the plaintiffs' possession relating either to this case, or the contract of August, 1918, or the damages claimed in the suit, they ought to have applied to the court without making any affidavit at all for an order directing the plaintiffs to state on oath the documents in their possession under Order XI, Rule 12. This they have not done. They omitted this step. They wished to go beyond Order XI, Rule 15, and applied to inspect under Order XI, Rule 18, documents not mentioned in the pleadings or in the affidavit of documents. They had to found such an application upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection was sought. We are of opinion that the affidavit which was filed with that object was totally insufficient. Carefully examined, it did not comply with t...
Gur Prasad Mukerji Vs. Bishun Dut
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.349
1. This was a suit by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from diminishing the light and air enjoyed by a window belonging to the plaintiff. The position appears to be that in 1913 Bishun Dat, the present defendant, was plaintiff in a suit against Gur Prasad Mukerji. Bishun Dat then complained that Gur Prasad Mukerji had un-authorisedly opened the two widows in his house which looked over the plaintiff's property. A compromise was arrived at by which Bishun Dat, secured the closing up of one of the windows entirely and the present plaintiff secured the maintenance of the southern window with liberty to heighten it by one foot if that were possible, otherwise to leaves it as it was before the suit. There was an agreement that the defendant would not block up that southern window. The exact words of the compromise were.-'And he (Bishun Dat) will have no right to block this window' (Band Kame.)2. Subsequent to the compromise the defendant erected a tin shed which, according to the pla...
Basdeo Pande and ors. Vs. Mohan Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.1000
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and in the alternative for a decree for joint possession to the extent of a two-thirds share in plot No. 939.2. The plaintiff's allegations in the plaint were that this plot appertained to a 3-pie share which had belonged to the plaintiff under some sort of a private partition and a one-third share which had been subsequently sold to the defendant, that Kuber dhobi was the occupancy tenant of this plot and that he left the village and vacated the land. After he had gone away both the plaintiff and the defendant took joint possession of it and had shown crops in it in the Kharif of 1329 F. and that the defendant had without the plaintiff's knowledge got his name alone entered in the patwari's papers on the strength of which he has Since been denying the Plaintiff's title.3. There were a number of pleas taken in the written statement one of which was that the s'it was not cognizable by the Civil Co...
Mukhtar Ahmad and ors. Vs. Kabir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All856; 78Ind.Cas.666
Daniels, J.1. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated and are stated in full in the judgment of the Court below. So far as they are necessary for the purposes of this appeal they are these.2. One Musammat Zaiban Bibi owned a share amounting to 1-anna 6-pies 6-kwants B-jan in the village of Bharw'ari in the Allahabad District. She died in 1896 leaving two daughters, Salim-un-nissa and Eahim-un-nissa, as her sole heirs. Her brother-in-law, Zia-ul-haq, took possession of the entire property. Musammat Eahim-un-nissa filed a suit and obtained possession of her share of the inheritance namely 9-pies 3-krants i-jan, Mst. Salim-un-nissa did not file a suit but on Zia-ul-haq's death in 1902 she claimed her share in the mutation proceedings A compromise was entered into by which she was awarded a 7-pies share and the remaining 2-pies 3-krams i-jan remained in posess-sion of the heirs of Zia-ul-haq. While Zia-ul-haq was in possession of the entire property he had mortgaged 9-pies of it to...
Firm Kedar Nath Durga Prasad Vs. Firm Bishwanath Lakshmi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.787
1. We think that this order has arisen out of a misunderstanding. In some ways the defendants are to blame. If they wanted to pin the plaintiffs down to a statement on oath of the relevant documents in the plaintiffs' possession relating either to this case, or the contract of August, 1918, or the damages claimed in the suit, they ought to have applied to the Court without making any affidavit at all for an order directing the plaintiffs to state on oath the documents in their possession under Order XI, Rule 19. This they have not done. They omitted this step. They fished to go beyond Order XI, Rule 15, and applied to inspect under Order XI, Rule 18 documents not mentioned in the pleadings or in the affidavit of documents. They had to found such an application upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection was sought. We are of opinion that the affidavit which was filed with that object was totally insufficient. Carefully examined, it did not comply with the rule. More importan...
Mahabir Prasad Misr Vs. Amla Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All379; (1924)ILR46All364
Sulaiman and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder arising out of certain execution proceedings. In 1907 the objectors' father, Ram Piari Eai, executed a mortgage deed in favour of the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 1,499. A suit was brought on the basis of this deed and a preliminary decree was passed on the 23rd of August, 1918. This was made absolute on the 27th of March, 1919. While an application for execution of this final decree was pending, Ram Piari Rai, the mortgagor, died on the 2nd of May, 1919. His sons were brought on the record as his representatives and they raised the objection that the debt incurred by Ram Piari Rai had not been incurred for any family necessity and was not binding on them. Parties adduced evidence on the question raised, and the court of first instance came to the conclusion that the debt had been contracted in connection with the business for the purchase and sale of elephants, which Ram Piari had been conducting. The learned Subordinate...
Ram Harakh Pande and anr. Vs. Nageshar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All370
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. These are two connected appeals which have arisen out of a suit for pre-emption. 'The sale-deed, which was executed and which gave rise to the suits, comprised two items of property, namely, a share in Mauza Dhaurahra and another share in mauza Kamhariya.2. The court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree in respect of the share in Dhaurahra but dismissed the claim with respect to the share in Kamhariya.3. Both parties appealed and the result in the lower court was that the plaintiffs' claim to Kamhariya was allowed and the defendant's appeal relating to the share in Dhaurahra was dismissed.4. We have, therefore, these two appeals Nos. 1388 and 1389, In the former the vendee appellant raises the question of the plaintiffs' right of pre-emption with respect to mauza Dhaurahra. As regards this case, Dr. Katju has informed us that as the record stands, he does not think that he is in a position to press his appeal and, therefore, we direct that appea...
Nageshar Prasad Vs. Ram Haraka Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All541; 79Ind.Cas.416
Lindsay, J.1. These are two connected appeals which have arisen out of a suit for pre-emption. The, sale-deed which? was executed and which gave rise to the Was comprised two items of property, namely, a share in Mauza Dhaurahra and another share in Mauza Kamhariya.2. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree in respect of the share in Dhaurahra but dismissed the claim with respect to the share in Kamhariya.3. Both parties appealed and the result in the lower Court was that the plaintiffs' claim to Kamhariya was allowed and the defendant's appeal relating to the share in Dhauraha was dismissed.4. We have, therefore, these two appeals, Nos. 1388 and 1389; in the former the vendee appellant raises the question of the plaintiffs' right of pre-emption with respect to Mauza Dhaurahra. As regards this case Dr. Katju has informed us that, as the record stands, he does not think that he is in a position to press his appeal and, therefore, we direct that appeal No. 1388 of 1921 be...
Mahabir Prasad Misir Alias Chaukat Misir Vs. Amla Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.517
1. This is an appeal by a decree-bolder arising out of certain execution proceedings. In 1907 the objectors' father Bam Piare Rai executed a mortgage-deed in favour of the decree-holder for a sum of Rs. 1,499 A suit was brought on the basis of this deed and a preliminary decree was passed on the 23rd of August 1918. This was made absolute on the 27th of March 1919. While an application for execution of this final decree was pending, Ram Piari Rai, the mortgagor, died on the 2nd of May 1919. His sons were brought on the record as his representatives and they raised the objection that the debt incurred by Ram Piare Rai had not been incurred for any family necessity and was not binding on them. Parties adduced evidence on the question raised and the Court of first instance came to 'the conclusion that the debt had been contracted in connection with the business for the purchase and sale of elephants, which Ram Piare Rai had been conducting. The learned Subordinate Judge was fully satisfie...
Jit Lal and anr. Vs. Samar Bahadur Singh and anr. and Ahmad Zaman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All359
Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether a right of pre-emption can be claimed in respect of an exchange. By an agreement, dated the 21st of October, 1919, some land, situated in the village Ramnagar, urf Gansiari, was given by Ahmad Zaman Khan in exchange for other land situated in the village Balika Jalalpur given by Samar Bahadur Singh and Jaduraj Singh. The object of the latter in taking the former property in exchange was to construct a road running from their village through the former village. The plaintiffs claim to be co-sharers of the village Ramnagar Gansiari and seek to pre-empt the land given by Ahmad Zaman Khan for the construction of the road. The wajib-ul-arz of that village provides that any co-sharer wishing to sell or mortgage the whole or part of his property shall, on the receipt of the price offered by a stranger, transfer it first to co-sharers who are descended with him from a common stock and are closely related, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »