Allahabad Court April 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.
Shah Lalchand and anr. Vs. Shah Ram Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All753; 82Ind.Cas.526
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal and the cross-objection arise out of a suit for pre-emption and the main question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to a preferential right of purchase as against the defendants vendees. The sale in question was effected by the defendants Nos. 3 to 13 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 22,000 on the 27th of May 1919; and the property sold comprised a 3 biswas share in patti No. 14 with the rights appertaining thereto in shamilat pattis Nos. 17 and 18 in the thok, known by the name of thok 12 biswas in the village Kadipur. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were co-sharers in that thok and that the defendants vendees were strangers. The Court below found that the village Kadipur comprised 2 thoks, that the plaintiffs were co-sharers in the thok in which the property in suit was situated and that the defendants vendees were co-sharers in the other thok....
Qadir Bakhsh and ors. Vs. Abdul Haq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All509; 84Ind.Cas.258
Daniels, J.1. The short point, and the sole point, raised in this appeal is whether Qassabs (butchers), not being proprietors in the village but ryots, have a right of transfer in their homes and the sites thereof in the village of Garhi in the Amroha Tahsil of the Moradabad District, in which the property in suit is situated. The second and third defendants who are Qassabs sold their house with the site on which it stands to another butcher the first defendant. The zemindar has sued for a declaration that the sale is invalid and for the possession of the site by removal of the constructions. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit but the learned District Judge has decreed it.2. The custom is recorded in the wajib-ularz of the village, which both parties accept but as to the interpretation of which they differ. The wajib-ularz recognises a transferable right in their houses and the sites in seven classes of persons and no others. These seven classes are Tambolis, Brahmans, Banias, Sheik...
Gobind Ram and ors. Vs. Musammat Ram Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All522; 83Ind.Cas.740
Neave, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage executed on the 22nd of November 1884 by one Pahar Singh in favour of four persons, Chhote Lal, Kashi Din, Debi Prasad and Ram Prasad for Rs. 1,100. Ram Prasad was interested in the mortgage to the extent of l/5th as he had advanced Rs. 220 only of the consideration.2. On the 17th October 1890 Pahar Singh sold certain other property to Chhote Lal Kashi Din and the representative of Debi Prasad and left with them Rs. 938 for payment of the mortgage of 1884. The reason why Rs. 938 was fixed as the amount to be paid was that under the mortgage-deed it had been agreed that the mortgagees were liable to pay Rs. 27 a year to the mortgagor, the rest of the usufruct going towards the interest. As six years had elapsed since the execution of the mortgage Rs. 162 fell to be deducted from the total consideration. The vendees were to pay to Ram Prasad his proportionate share of the mortgage-money. In the plaint it is stated ...
Ram Saran and ors. Vs. Thakur Seo Pratap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All605; 85Ind.Cas.586
Neave, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that what they describe as a compromise filed by them in a criminal Court is null and void and not binding upon them. Briefly put, the facts are that the appellants are grove holders. The respondents who are their Zamindars, made a report to the police that they had planted some new trees and dug holes in their groves and that, as these groves were used as the site of the weekly market, there was a risk that these actions might give rise to disputes and breaches of the peace. The Sub-Inspector of Police made a report to the Magistrate on which proceedings were started against the appellants under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants filed a petition containing the alleged compromise. As a matter of fact, this was not a compromise at all but an undertaking given by them to plant no more trees, to remove any new trees that had been planted and to abstain in future ...
Nand Lal and anr. Vs. Anandi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All665
Kanhaiya Lal and Mukerji, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the property of Parabh Lal, who died of the plague on the 28th of January, 1905. He had several sons, some of whom: had died in bis life-time. The allegation of the plaintiff was that one of his sons, Har Bilas, survived him and died of plague a few days later, that Har Bilas was succeeded by his mother, Musammat Kishori, and that on the death of Musammat Kishori, which took place on the 9th of December, 1916, Nand Lal and Pararn Sukh became entitled to the property in dispute as the nearest reversionary heirs. Param Sukh has since sold his rights to Mangli who was substituted in his place during the pendency of this litigation.2. The defendants, Dongar Singh and Ugar Singh, claim to be the sons of the sister of Parabh Lal. The defendants NOS. 9 to 16 have been impleaded as the remoter members of the family to which Parabh Lal belonged. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are transferees either from Musammat Kishori or from o...
Lachman Prasad and anr. Vs. Majju and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All671
Ryves, J.1. In my opinion the judgment of my learned brother was correct and I would dismiss the appeal.Dalal, J.2. I agree.Walsh, Acting C.J.3. I should like to say that the matter of law raised by the appeal has been very fully argued by Mr. Haidar in a very interesting discussion. I merely want to add my reason for constituting the Bench as I did in this case, because Mr. Haidar raised a sort of indefinite protest against it. In this case, and in the next one which we are about to hear, it seemed to me, when I happened to be acting as Chief. Justice and was looking into my duty as regards the constitution of the Bench, that these two cases were of a somewhat exceptional character, and that in this case, in particular, it was desirable, having regard to the Full Bench which has been referred to and the fact that I was a member of that Full Bench, to have a decision of three Judges. I remain of the same opinion after hearing Mr. Haidar's interesting argument.4. The order of the Court ...
Musammat Batka Vs. Musammat Sitman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All527; 82Ind.Cas.372
Neave, J.1. This is an appeal from, an order of the Additional Judge of Gorakhpur modifying a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of that District. The facts of the case are that one Achhaibar died leaving a widow Musammat Gulzarj and two daughters Musammat Lanji and Musammat Batka. Musammat Gulzari succeeded to her husband's estate which consisted of shares in two villages Katarua and Baldiha. She executed a deed of gift in respect of the Katarua property in favour of her two daughters in equal shares and their names were entered accordingly in the revenue papers.2. The share in Mauza Baldiha had been mortgaged by Achhaibar. After the death of their mother the two daughters redeemed this mortgage, paying equal shares of the mortgage-money. On the 15th August, 1918, Musammat Lanji died, and after some litigation in the Revenue Courts the name of her daughter-in-law, Musammat Sitman, was recorded as proprietor of half the property in both the villages. The suit out of which this ...
Muhammad Ashiq Ali Vs. Musammat Hajra Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All690; 82Ind.Cas.627
1. This appeal succeeds. The matter is really quite simple. A suit for dower-debt was brought by a widow against certain heirs of her husband. She herself exempted her property, and, therefore, her share in the contribution to the debt, in the plaint, and she finally claimed the balance of the debt, namely Rs. 7,500, against the balance of the heirs. Owing to carelessness, which we are afraid is too frequent, her Pleader did not in the relief claim specifically the exact shares in which she was entitled to succeed against each defendant. This may quite well have been due to the fact that it had been mentioned in the body of the pleading, and it was so well-known to everybody, that no child in the business of the law required to be told what the shares were. The relief claimed was, in the alternative, joint or several. The contest was about the amount of the dower and other matters. There was no dispute about the share of liabilities. The judgment gave the relief as prayed. If the decre...
Majju and anr. Vs. Lachman Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All535; 84Ind.Cas.702
Cecil Henry Walsh, Acting C.J.1. I should like to say that the matter of law raised by the appeal has been very fully argued by Mr. Haider in a very interesting discussion. I merely want to add my reason for constituting the Bench as I did in this case, because Mr. Haider raised a sort of indefinite protest against it. In this case, and the next one which we are about to hear, it seemed to me, when I happened to be acting as Chief Justice and was looking into my duty as regards the constitution of the Bench, that these two cases were of a somewhat exceptional character and that in this case, in particular, it was desirable, having regard to the Full Bench which has been referred to and the fact that I was a member of that Full Bench, to have a decision of three Judges. I remain of the same opinion after hearing Mr. Haider's interesting, argument.Ryves, J.2. In my opinion the judgment of my learned brother was correct and I would dismiss the appeal.Dalai, J.3. I agree.4. By the Court. T...
Musammat Anandi and ors. Vs. Nand Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All575; 83Ind.Cas.618
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the property of Parabh Lal, who died of the plague on the 28th of January 1905. He had several sons some of whom had died in his lifetime. The allegation of the plaintiff was that one of his sons, Har Bilas, survived him and died of plague a few days later, that Har Bilas was succeeded by his mother Musammat Kishori and that on the death of Musammat Kishori which took place on the 9th December 1916, Nand Lal and Param Sukh became entitled to the property in dispute as his nearest reversionary heirs. Param Sukh has since sold his rights to Mangli who was substituted in his place during the pendency of this litigation.2. The defendants Dongar Singh and Ugar Singh claim to be the sons of the sister of Parabh Lal. The defendants Nos. 9 to 16 have been impleaded as the remoter members of the family to which Parabh Lal belonged. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are transferees either from Musammat Kishori or from one or other of the claimants to the estate....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »