Allahabad Court March 1927 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.
Abdul Ghafur and ors. Vs. Kamal UddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.155
1. The question which is raised for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs pre-emptors were liable to pay Rs. 8,750 for the property sought to be pre-empted or only Rs. 5,500 as found by the Courts below.2. Ordinarily, the question as to the price which was paid for properties sought to be pre-empted is a question of fact, which cannot be considered in second appeal. In this case, however, it is alleged that, the law as laid down in Section 17 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, has been misapplied and that the judgment of the Courts below cannot be accepted.3. We think it advisable, therefore, in the first instance to consider the provisions of Section 17 above mentioned. It is not to be denied that the section is unfortunately worded and obscure. Sub-section (1) states that where in any suit on the basis of the sale, the Court finds that the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption but that the ostensible price was not the actual price, it shall proceed to ascertain the actual...
Deo NaraIn Singh Vs. Ajodhiya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All575
1. These appeals arise out of two suits for pre-emption brought in the following circumstances: On the 1st of May 1923. Mt. Abharaji joined with one Ajudhia, her reversioner, in executing a sale-deed in favour of the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and the predecessors of the Defendants Nos, 3 to 7. The consideration shown in the sale-deed is a sum of Rs. 100. A suit to pre-empt the sale was brought by one Deo Narain Singh who alleged that the real consideration was only Rs. 25. He sought pre-emption of the sale on payment of this sum.2. After this suit had been instituted the defendant-vendees obtained from Mt. Abharaji alone a deed which purported to be a deed of gift, the value of the property being expressed to be Rs. 400. The plaintiff Deo Narain Singh instituted another suit to challenge this transaction. He alleged, in the first place, that it was a fictitious transaction entered into for the purpose of defeating his right of pre emption in the other suit. He claimed in the alternative t...
Parshadi Lal and ors. Vs. Hulas Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All790; 101Ind.Cas.554
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against Hulas Rai defendant-respondent for his share of profits in a certain village for the years 1328 and 1329 F. corresponding to July. 1920 to end of June 1922. The defence was that the parties to the suit at the time in respect of which profits were claimed, were members of a joint Hindu family and that one or more co-parceners cannot sue another co-parcener for share of profits even though the defendant be a lambardar. Both the lower Courts accepted this defence. They held that there had been no partition in the family previous to the date of a partition decree subsequent to the years in suit.2. In this second appeal there are two points taken by counsel for the appellants. One point is that there was evidence referred to by both the lower Courts of an agreement by the parties to refer a question of partition to arbitrators as early as the 29th August 1920, and that the lower Courts were wrong in hold...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›