Allahabad Court June 1926 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.
Tawassul HussaIn Vs. Abrar HussaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All225
1. We consider that the chief difficulty which has arisen out of these proceedings is accounted for by the reluctance of the Courts below to face the facts before them and give a definite decision. Mt. Izzat Fatma is an old Muhammadan widow, who in the year 1923 executed a certain waqfnama and also a sale-deed, The applicant, who is her sister's son, then came before the Court in Cawnpore with an application for an inquisition in insanity which was not supported by any affidavit or any medical certificate. The proceedings dragged on for a considerable time for one reason or another and finally the learned District. Judge has come to the conclusion that the woman is not of unsound mind. It is true that this is not a very definite conclusion, but the reason for that is that the applicant did not produce any definite evidence. We have read a statement which this lady made to a Commissioner appointed by the Court when she was admittedly living with the applicant. She stated that she was su...
Saktu Mal Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.416
Daniels, J.1. The appellant is a purchaser who claims partition of a one-third of a s dwelling house on the basis of a purchase. The Courts below, have allowed the defendants to purchase his share under Section 4 of the Partition Act. He objects to this part of the decree. When the appeal was first argued under Order XLT, Rule 11, three ;pleas only were urged on behalf of the appellant as noted in my order of 22nd April, 1926.2. They are-(1) That the house is not a dwelling house within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partition Act.(2) That it does not belong to an undivided family.(3) That there was no offer by any member of the family to purchase it as required by Section 4.3. I allowed the record to be sent for to find out if the third plea was correct. It shows that a distinct offer to purchase was made by the defendants in their written statement. The appellant suggests that this was not a good offer because the defendants denied the plaintiff's right to the one-third share which ...
Raja Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Autar Rai and anr. and Timal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.783
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for exclusive possession of a 1/3rd share in certain villages, the list of specific plots being given in the plaint. In the alternative the plaintiffs claimed a decree for joint possession. There was a further relief for mesne profits. The whole plaint was based on the supposition that the plaintiffs were entitled to a 1/3rd share in certain properties which had under a private partition been divided, the plaintiffs being put in exclusive possession of their separate share. It was on this basis that mesne profits were claimed. The Court below has found that the allegation as to the private partition is untrue and the claim for exclusive possession has been dismissed. There is no cross-objection by the plaintiffs and it must, therefore, be taken as final that there has been no private partition at all. On a previous occasion the plaintiffs obtained a decree for redemption of the property in suit from the Civil Court arid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›