Allahabad Court March 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.
Qudrat-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Abdur Rashid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All542
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent in a case in which two learned Judges of this Court have differed on a question of law raised before them in a second appeal. As might be expected, the question is one of some delicacy, but in its essence it is simple enough. The facts are as follows:One Musammat Ashraf-un-nissa died on the 28th of January, 1914. Her heirs, under the Muhammadan law, were her husband Abdul Rashid, her sister Qudrat-un-nissa and a daughter Kaniz Fatma, at that time a minor.2. On the 10th of November, 1914, Musammat Qudrat-un-nissa filed a suit in which she impleaded Abdul Rashid and Kaniz Fatma as defendants. The suit was one for recovery of possession of the one-fourth share in certain specified zamindari property which had come to the plaintiff by inheritance on the death of her sister. The allegation made in the plaint was that the defendant Abdul Rashid had improperly taken possession of the whole of the zamindari ...
Hanuman Prasad and anr. Vs. Raghunath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All715; (1924)ILR46All573; 82Ind.Cas.659
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs asked that a certain portion of a recently constructed building, which had been put up by the defendant, might be removed inasmuch as it was interfering with a right of way which the plaintiffs had in respect of the houses they occupy. Shortly, their case was that for a period of over 40 years they had been accustomed to travel by foot, with ekkas and carts over what is marked upon the map before us as 'public way BBBB.' They traced the origin of this public way by saying that at one remote period, round about 1864, the land was covered with houses, which, at some date not specifically stated, fell down, and that for a very long period of time there were marks of where the houses had been and portions of the ruined houses; that there arose a practice of passing over the site of the ruined houses, and that, for a period longer than is necessary to obtain a prescriptive right, ekkas and c...
Shaikh Abdur Rashid Vs. Musammat Qudratunnissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All713; 79Ind.Cas.338
1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent in a case in which two learned Judges of this Court have differed on a question of law raised before them in a second appeal. As might be expected, the question is one of some delicacy, but in its essence it is simple enough. The facts are as follows:One Musammat Ashraf-un-nissa died on the 28th of January 1914. Her heirs under the Muhammadan Law were her husband Abdul Rashid, her sister Qudrat-un-nissa and a daughter Kaniz Fatma, at that time a minor.2. On the 10th of November 1914 Musammat Qudrat-un-nissa filed a suit in which she impleaded Abdul Rashid and Kaniz Fatma as defendants. The suit was one for recovery of possession of the one-fourth share in certain specified zemindari property which had came to the plaintiff by inheritance on the death of her sister. The allegation made in the plaint was that the defendant Abdul Rashid had improperly taken possession of the whole of the zemindari property of the deceased, and that he was purp...
Lakshmi NaraIn Misir and anr. Vs. Musammat Sumarti Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All439
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. Both the courts below have dismissed the claim.2. The property in dispute belonged originally to one Kesri Mal alias Kesri Singh, who admittedly died some time before the mutiny. On his death he left a widow Musammat Chunno and two daughters Musammat Durga and Musammat Cheno and also a sister's son Baijnath. Before his death. Kesri Mal is said to have executed a document, dated the 28th of January, 1838, the genuineness of which was challenged by the plaintiffs in the courts below. Both the courts below, however have found that this was a genuine document and that finding is a finding of fact.2. The terms of this document are admittedly very vague and ambiguous. We have had the original read over to us and there can be no doubt that the language of this document is at places ungrammatical and not quite clear. On the whole, however, I do not find it possible to differ from the interpretation pu...
ishdak Tewari and anr. Vs. Tameshar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.296
Daniels, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs appellants, Ish Dutt and Ram Murat, seek to set aside a sale-deed of joint family property executed by their respective fathers Mukat Nath and Parimeshwar Dutt on 28th May 1901 as having been made without legal necessity.2. The following pedigree will assist in the understanding of the case: Naipal | ___________________________________ | | Parmeshwar Dutt Mukat Nath | | Ram Murat ________________ | | Ish Dutt Asharfi Dult Pltff. Pltff. (age 8)2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit altogether. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of Earn Murat but allowed that of Ish Dutt in respect of one item of the sale consideration. The plaintiffs appeal and the defendants have filed cross-objections. The lower Court's findings of fact are:(1) That the family was joint when the sale was executed.(2) that a separation took place on the very next day after the date of the sale-deed.(3) that Ish Dutt's age was 20 at the time of suit.3. The third f...
Pandit Lakshmi NaraIn Misr and anr. Vs. Musammat Sumarni Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All731; 79Ind.Cas.389
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery 6f possession. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim.2. The property in dispute belonged originally to one Kesri Mai alias Kesri Singh, who admittedly died some time before the Mutiny. On his death he left a widow Musammat Cheno and two daughters Musammat Durga and Musammat Cheno and also a sister's son Baijnath. Before his death Kesri Mai is said to have executed a document, dated the 28th of January 1838, the genuineness of which was challenged by the plaintiffs in the Court below. Both the Courts below, however, have found that this was a genuine document and that finding is a finding of a fact.3. The terms of this document are admittedly very vague and ambiguous, we have had the original read over to us and there can be no doubt that the language of this document is at places ungrammatical and not quite clear. On the whole, however, I do Hot find it possible to differ from the interpretation put...
Gokul and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All667; 83Ind.Cas.664
Ryves, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Magistrate of the First Class of Cawnpore made under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge.2. A katcha public road takes off from the Grand Trunk Road near the village of Sachendi and passes through it. At this part there are houses on both sides of the road.3. Outside the house of Ajudhia Prasad and Gokul there is an ancient tamarind tree, one branch of which overhangs the road and forms an arch over it, and the end of the branch almost rests on some houses on the other side, which, however, are described as in ruins and unoccupied. It is an old tree and has stood firm for very many 'years and has not caused any inconvenience or apprehension of danger to anybody.4. During the Muharram of 1923 for the first time, some Muhammadans had occasion to complain of this branch. They had built a Tazia unusually high and carried it aloft in the usual fashion, and found it cou...
Dhanraj Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Naresh Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All912; 79Ind.Cas.1019
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to set aside on the ground of what of legal necessity two sales of joint family property made in the years 1904 and 1910 respectively. The deed of 1910 has been held by both Courts to be binding on the plaintiffs and the dispute is now confined to the deed of 1904. The two issues to be decided are:Is the suit within time?Was the alienation justified by legal necessity or antecedent debt?2. The family to which the plaintiffs belong consists of four branches headed by the four sons of the common ancestor Jhingur Rai. The deed in suit was executed by the heads of all four branches. Two of the sons of Jhingur Rai, namely Jharap Rai and Dhanraj Rai, were alive and exeouted it. The other two Jadu Rai and Dhanoki Rai were dead but the deed was exeouted by the two sons of Jadu Rai and by the only son of Dhanoki Rai. The executants also admittedly included all the adult male members of the family at the time when the deed ...
Bohra Sobha Ram Vs. Tursi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.923
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property and mesne profits. The plaintiff also offered to let the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 redeem him if they chose to do so.2. The facts of this case are as follows: On the 5th July 1889 a mortgage-deed was executed by one Dharamjit ostensibly in favour of Tursi. It is not now disputed that this Tursi was benamidar for Sobha Ram the real mortgagee. On the 27th July 1898 Dharamjit sold the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to Ganga Ram and Dhanwant. It may be stated that although the sale-deed stood in the name of these transferees, the mutation of names was, subsequently, effected in favour of the sons of these persons. It is not necessary at this stage to state all the circumstances under which the mutation of names was effected in that way as that question has not been gone into by the Court below.3. On the 20th December 1909, Sobha Ram the real mortgagee brought a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›