Allahabad Court December 1969 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.
Suba Singh and ors. Vs. Sarafraz Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1897)ILR19All215
Knox, J.1. The question which has been referred to us for decision is thus set out in the referring order of the 26th of February 1895.2. Does the distinction between the whole blood and the half blood observed in the case of brothers and their sons extend to the descendants of the grandfathers and of remoter ascendants; and, if so, how far3. The distinction referred to is a preferential right to succeed to the inheritance of property left by a deceased member of the family, that member being at the time of his death not a member of a joint undivided family, but separate and apart from the disputants.4. In the case before us the property in dispute is the property of one Nageshar. The appellants and respondents both derive their title to the present claim from their descent from one Ganga Bakhsh, the common ancestor alike of Nageshar deceased, of the present appellants and of the present respondents.5. Nageshar was the great-great-grandson of Ganga Bakhsh by Ganga Bakhsh's son Anand. T...
Hasan Ali Vs. Maktab Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All551
Oldfield, J.1. This is an application, under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, to revise an order of the Lower Appellate Court passed in an appeal from a decree of the Munsif of Muhammadabad. The plaintiff brought a suit against the applicants before us for damages for breach of contract. The Munsif decreed a portion of the claim and dismissed the remainder. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, and the applicants before us, who were respondents, filed objections under Section 561 of the Code. Before the hearing began the plaintiff-appellant applied to withdraw his appeal, and it was dismissed, and the applicants' objection were at the same time dismissed, without the Lower Appellate Court going into them. It is this order of the Judge we are asked to revise. I am of opinion that the applicants had no claim, under the circumstances, to have their objections heard when the appeal itself was not heard. The terms of Section 561 are, that a respondent may, upon the hearing, support the...
Sundar Vs. Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All1
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit instituted by one Musammat Sundar against Musammat Parbati, both of them being the widows of one Baldeo Sahai, for partition of the property in suit said to be held jointly by them. As it is of great importance in the ease to ascertain precisely the grounds upon which the claim is made, and the grounds upon which the defence is based, I will first proceed to explain them.2. The plaintiff states in her petition of plaint as follows:1. That the properties mentioned in the accompanying schedules form part of the estate of Lala Baldeo Sahai, deceased, who, being childless, declared Prem Sukh Das in his lifetime to be his adopted son and heir, 'solemnly executing a will in his favour in 1875. He died in December 1878.2. That on the death of Lala Baldeo Sahai, the plaintiff and the defendant undertook to maintain Prem Sukh, minor, and to look after the affairs connected with the property.3. That Prem Sukh Das, who had not contracted a marriage, died d...
Kanizak HusaIn and ors. Vs. Jadu Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All576
Straight, Offg. C.J.1. In my opinion the question put by this reference must be answered in the affirmative. It is not contested that the learned Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction territorially and peculiarly to try the suit, and the single point appears to be, did he try it, or, in other words, did he hold a legal trial? It is conceded by the appellants learned Counsel that no objection was raised before the Subordinate Judge to his taking up and dealing with the case in the way that he did; on the contrary, he is admitted to observe correctly in his judgment, where he says--'I have heard very able and lengthy arguments on both sides. The evidence has been minutely dissected and criticized, and many probabilities urged upon both sides.' It is obvious from this passage that, if there could have been a waiver on the part of the appellants in reference to the action of the Subordinate Judge, of which they seek now to complain in special appeal, there was such waiver. In short, their pos...
Dianat-ul-lah Beg Vs. Wajid Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All31
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I am of opinion that this appeal should be allowed, and the ground upon which I wish to base my judgment, is that the action as brought is not maintainable, whatever the facts may be. I desire to guard myself against expressing any opinion upon the question whether the property in dispute is or is not wakf. If it were necessary to consider that point, I think that a new trial would be necessary, in order that evidence might be adduced to determine the true character of the property. The evidence on the record is wholly insufficient for the determination of this question, and I therefore refrain from expressing any opinion in regard to it. I confine myself to saying that, under any set of circumstances which have been suggested in this case, the action is not maintainable.2. The action is one of which the character has been formulated by the plaintiff himself in his plaint. He begins by stating that he is a Muhammadan. He then goes on to say that there is certa...
Nihal Singh and ors. Vs. Kokale Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All29
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. I think that this appeal must be dismissed and the decision of the Court below affirmed. The suit is to enforce aright of pre-emption. The plaintiffs and the vendor are co-sharers. The co-sharers who are defendants in the suit sold to the other defendants, who are strangers, the amount of consideration being Rs. 15,000. They made a bargain with the defendants-vendors that a portion of the purchase-money should remain on credit. The plaintiffs obtained a decree. They are the appellants before the Court,and they urge that they must have the same credit in respect of payment of the purchase-money as that arranged between the vendors and the vendees-defendants. I do not think that is the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz. The stranger and the vendors made some particular bargain regarding the payment of the purchase-money, with which the pre-empting plaintiff's had nothing to do I do not think it possible to say that the plaintiffs have not only the right of pre-emption...
Behari Das Vs. Kalian Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All543
Tyreell, J.1. This case is one in which a reference to arbitration was made when the suit was in the Court of First Instance.2. The question at issue was referred to three arbitrators, namely, Nand Kishore, Jit Mal and Beni Ram, and the order of the Court was, that the award made by these arbitrators should be filed, that is to say, made and delivered, on or before the 19th September 1885. As a matter of fact the award of the three arbitrators was not filed on that date, but was signed by two of them on that date, and by Beni Earn, the third arbitrator, on the 20th September. Both parties objected to the propriety and correctness of the arbitrator's award, but their objections were overruled, and a decree based on the award was passed.3. On appeal by the defendant the Lower Appellate Court set aside this decree, holding the award to be invalid, and remitted the case to the first Court for trial on its merits. This order of the Lower Appellate Court is the subject of the present appeal....
Nand Ram Vs. Sita Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All545
Oldfield and Tyrrell, JJ.1. The appellant was a successful plaintiff in a preemption suit, the first Court having decreed the property to him on condition of his paying for it the price of Rs. 1,098-11-0. The first appellate Court raised this sum to Rs. 1,139-15-6; and on the 6th July 1880, the plaintiff paid this sum into court. The defeated party drew it out on the 19th August 1881. But meanwhile the High Court in second appeal decreed the enhanced sum of Rs. 2,400 to be the true price payable by the pre-emptor, who, finding it more than he cared to give, let the time limited for payment of the excess difference elapse without paying it. On the 25th May 1883, the plaintiff applied to the Subordinate Judge in the department of execution of the decree for the refund of his deposit, which had been drawn and retained by the other side. His application was granted, and the defendant was ordered to refund on the 4th July 1883. But the latter carried the case in appeal to the District Judge...
Muhammad Ismail and ors. Vs. Waris Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All552
Oldfield, J.1. This suit has been brought by the plaintiff to eject the appellant-defendant, Waris Ali, from one bigha of land in mauza Burhausi.2. The plaintiff's case is that this is rent-paying land which had been granted to Nasiba by the plaintiff's father many years ago, free from payment of any rent, on condition that certain services as a mimic should be performed that these services continued to be performed till lately, when Nasiba discontinued them, and has sold the land to the appellant.3. The plaintiff endeavoured to resume the land in the Revenue Court as a rent-free grant under Section 30 of the Rent Act but the application was disallowed on the ground that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction, there being no rent-free grant as contemplated in the Act.4. The defence was, that the land had been bestowed unconditionally on Nasiba, who enjoyed it as the proprietor.5. The Court of First Instance found that the land had, up to 1264 fasli been recorded as paying cash rent, and...
Muhammad Hasan and ors. Vs. Nur-ul-hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1886)ILR8All573
Oldfield, J.1. The matter in this appeal relates to the execution of a decree obtained for a right of pre-emption. It appears there were two sets of pre-emptors. The first set are respondents before us. They brought a suit against the vendors, the vendee (who is the appellant before us), and the other set of pre-emptors, and obtained a decree for a moiety of the property. This decree is dated the 7th March 1882. Out of the defendants, the second set of pre-emptors alone appealed, and their appeal was dismissed on the 12th May 1882. The decree-holders (respondents) applied to execute their decree on the 12th May 1885, and this application, being objected to by the purchaser, the appellant before us, was disallowed by the Munsif, but on appeal to the Lower Appellate Court the Munsif s order was reversed, and execution granted against Nur-ul-Hasan, the purchaser of the property. He has now preferred this appeal on the ground that the application for execution is barred, having been filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- Next ›
- Last »