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.
Beni Prasad and ors. Vs. SheodIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All425; (1924)ILR46All361; 78Ind.Cas.586
Lindsfay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. The property in dispute comprises a one anna share in mahal. Rukmin Kunwar of the village Azampur Garhua and was sold by the defendant Manni Lal, to the other defendant, Sheo Din, for a consideration of Rs. 4,000 out of which Rs. 2,500 were credited towards a mortgage held by the vendee. Rs. 652 were paid at the time of registration, and the balance was left with the vendee for payment to one Ram Sahai.2. The plaintiffs claimed to be the co-sharers of the vendor in mahal Rukmin Kunwar. The defendant vendee was a stranger to the village. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that there was a custom of pre-emption applicable to mahal Rukmin Kunwar. The courts below found that there was a custom of pre-emption applicable to the village Azampur Garhua; but it had been abrogated by the partition of the village in 1906 and that what was recorded in the wajib-ul-arz prepared at the time of partition was a mere c...
Babu Samar Bahadur Singh and anr. and Jit Lal and anr. Vs. Ahmad Zaman ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.495
1. The question for consideration in this 6ase is whether a right of pre-emption can be claimed in respect of an exchange. BY an agreement, dated the 21st October 1919 some land situated in the village Ramnagar 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 construed a road running from their village through the former village The plaintiffs claim to be co-sharers of the village Ramnagar Gansiari and seak to pre-empt the land given by Ahmad Zaman Khan for the construction of the road. The wajib-ul-ars 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, then to the other co-sharers of the village,...
Chaube Benaik Rao and ors. Vs. PuttaIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All929; 79Ind.Cas.69
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage-deed dated the 14th of November 1873. The deed in question was executed by Deota Prasad, his two nephews Raghubir Singh and Kure Lai and Mussammat Ugar Kunwar, the widow of his deceased brother Prag Dat. It was in favour of Jwala Prasad and Bansi Dhar, the predecessors-in-title of the present plaintiffs, the mortgage-deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and was payable in ten years with interest at the rate of 13-annas 4-pies per cent, per mensem. Out of Rs. 300 due on account of interest, Rs. 200, if not paid within the next six months, were to be compounded after the expiry of each such period. We may also point out one of the covenants of the deed under which it was stipulated that each of the three sets of mortgagors would be entitled to redeem his share of the mortgaged property on payment of a proportionate share of the mortgage-debt.2. There was a prior mortgage by condi...
Raghunath Vs. Bindeshwari Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All526; 82Ind.Cas.582
Kanhaya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a shop and a house situate in Bindhyachal. The question for consideration was whether the defendant-appellant occupied the house in question as a parjawatdar or as a tenant on behalf of the plaintiffs; The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of the land occupied by the house. Their allegation was that the defendant occupied the said house as a tenant and was liable to ejectment. The defendant appellant, however, said that he was only a parjawatdar, holding the land occupied by the house in dispute on rent and that he was not liable to ejectment. He asserted that the shop and the house in dispute were built by his predecessor-in-title. He produced among other papers a deed of gift purporting to have been executed by Musammat Badam in favour of Musammat Chingani on the 18th of May 1862, wherein it was stated that the ancestors of the donor had obtained the land from Bhawani and Sital and built a house which she was conveying to her...
Mutsaddi Lal and ors. Vs. CaptaIn Dr. Kharag Bahadur Singh Karti, Thro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All925; 78Ind.Cas.508
1. These two appeals have arisen out of two separate suits for pre-emption which were brought with respect to the sales of two items of property situated in a village called Purohitwala Birpur in the district of Dehra Dun.2. The plaintiffs based their right of pre-emption upon a clause in the wajib-ul-arz.3. The defendannts denied the existence of custom. Both the Courts below were of opinion that the custom existed, and after deciding some other question wjiich arose for disposal, awarded the plaintiffs in each case a decree fdr pre-emption.4. The vendees have now come here in appeal and the first point which has been taken on their behalf is that the Courts below were erroneous in finding that a custom existed. After examination of the evidence on this point and the judgment of the Court below be are of opinion that this appeal ought to prevail. We think the decision of the Courts below is erroneous.5. It is apparent from the judgment of the learned District Judge that for the purpos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›