Allahabad Court June 1931 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.
Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Jalil Khan Vs. Kunwar Mohammad Abdus Salam Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All178
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. Three out of the thirty four appeals Which were connected with one another were dismissed by us yesterday, as no appeal lay to the High Court. These appeals arise out of suits for profits brought by one brother as co-sharer against the eldest brother as the lambardar. They relate to different mahals, but the points which arise in most of them are more or less common.2. In some cases the defendant was not allowed to file his written statements as applications for adjournment of the cases on his behalf were rejected. In two cases he filed his written statements which gave us an idea of the pleas raised on his behalf.3. It is convenient to dispose of the points which are common in all these appeals.4. The plaintiff claimed his share of profits on the basis of gross rentals. The Court below has given him decrees on the basis of the gross rentals in all the cases. It is quite clear that if the defendant succeeds in showing the actual collections, then, unless those coll...
Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs. Sita Ram Sah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All193; 136Ind.Cas.616
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption based on an alleged custom, of the sale of a building site in the city of Benares. The plaintiff alleged that there was a custom in Benares applying to all residents under which any person wishing to transfer any house or building site or land was bound to offer it to his cosharers in the property, to sharers in the appendages and to adjoining neighbours. The plaintiff also allege that he had performed the two demands which were in accordance with the rules of the Mahomedan law. The contesting defendant admitted that there were certain customs prevailing within the said part of the city of Benares, but pleaded thatthe custom of pre-emption that prevails in Benares relates to residential houses only, and there is no custom of pre-emption regarding house sites and lands in Benares.2. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had not in fact made the necessary-demands. The allegation of the plaintiff t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›