Allahabad Court February 1914 Judgments
Makhan Lal and ors. Vs. Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Compa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All524; 25Ind.Cas.77
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Agra rejecting a certain plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff is a merchant residing at Agra. The case set forth in the plaint is that forty-one bags of sugar were consigned to the plaintiff's address from a Railway Station named Bhata Pokhar to the Agra Fort Railway Station; and that when delivery was made nine bags of sugar were missing and there was a total shortage of twenty-seven maunds five seers of sugar. In respect of that shortage the plaintiff claims compensation and damages. The plaint is, no doubt, badly drafted. It omits to state in plain language even so essential a fact as that the Agra Fort Railway Station is under the control of the railway administration impleaded by him as defendant, i.e., the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company. A...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shankar and Vs. Jamna Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All308
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage executed by one Lal Muhammad on the 13th of November, 1907. The suit was defended by persons who claimed under a mortgage made in 1908, by Lal Muhammad and his wife, Zahuran. They allege that Lal Muhammad had no interest in the property. The facts are practically admitted. One Muhammad Bakhsh entered into possession of the property adversely to the real owner. He had a daughter of the name of Zahuran, who married Lal Muhammad. These persons, and probably other members of the family of Muhammad Bakhsh, continued in possession of the property until Muhammad Bakhsh died.2. After his death Lal Muhammad and his wife Musammat Zahuran continued in possession. No doubt the property was managed by Lal Muhammad after the death of his father-in-law. In the mortgage in favour of the defendant it is stated that the property was inherited by Musammat Zahuran from her father. There is also a s...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Ghafur Khan Vs. Gokul Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All527; 25Ind.Cas.81
Piggott, J.1. This was a suit which on the face of it purported to be one for the recovery of house-rent. The plaintiff, however, admitted that he was only the proprietor of a certain share, namely 9/16th of the house, and he impleaded as defendants, not only the lessee from whom the rent was claimed, but also certain other persons, namely, a former usufructuary mortgagee of the house and a person alleged to be the owner of the remaining 7/16th share. The Munsif, in whose Court the suit was filed, held that the suit' was one of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and returned the plaint for presentation to such a Court. The learned Judge of that Court has again returned it for presention to a Court of regular civil jurisdiction. The difficulty which I feel in dealing with the application now before me is that the learned Judge of the Court below has given too many reasons for his order. He gives a number of reasons for his order. He gives a number of reasons why the suit mus...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Das and ors. Vs. Uma Shanker and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All282; 25Ind.Cas.158
1. This is a suit on a simple mortgage executed on 13th November 1907 by Lal Muhammad. The suit is defended by the mortgagees under a second mortgage of the same property executed by Lal Muhammad and his wife, Zahuran, in February 1908. Money was left with the mortgagees under this deed to pay off the prior mortgage in suit, but the mortgagees did not pay it but brought a suit on their mortgage without impleading the plaintiff, the prior mortgagee.2. The Court of first instance decreed the suit holding that Lal Muhammad was the de facto owner of the property and that even if he was not, Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act applied.3. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the real owners of the property were not Lal Muhammad but his father-in-law, Muhammad Bakhsh, and after him his wife, Zahuran, and that Section 41 did not apply. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. As regards the first point, viz., who was the real owner of the property, I prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Faiyaz HusaIn and Vs. Khurshed Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All289
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Syed Faiyaz Husain, the plaintiff respondent No. 1, to recover his legal share in the estate left by his elder brother, Syed Tajammul Husain.2. It appears that Tajammul Husain was the eldest of four brothers and one sister. One of the brothers, Riaz-ud-din, died in the life-time of Tajammul Husain leaving him surviving a son called Nasir-ud-din. The other two brothers and the sister, namely, Faiyaz Husain, Khurshed Husain and Musammat Fizza, are still alive.3. On the 4th of July, 1911, Tajammul Husain executed a deed in respect of the whole of his property in favour of Khurshed Husain. The document was written out as a deed of gift, but was prior to its execution altered and described as a sale-deed, the consideration of which was remitted by the executant. Immediately after the execution of the document an application for mutation of names was made by Khurshed Husain, and the next day, on the 5th of July, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahir Lal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All235
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J1. This is an application under Order XXIT, Rule 4, of the Coda of Civil Procedure to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such an application. A learned Judge of this Court has referred the application to us for disposal, he being of opinion that under Order XXII, Rule 4 no application can be entertained unless ft is filed, within the period of limitation allowed by the Limitation Act, that is to say, within six months from the date of the decease of the respondent. We agree with the view taken by our learned colleague. The law seems to have been altered in this respect in the present Code of Civil Procedure. By Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that section can apply only to eases to which, besides the eases mentioned in the section itself, it is made applicable by any other provision of law. That section is not mad...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki Nath Vs. Badri Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All17(2); (1914)ILR36All250
Henry Richards, C.J. and Ryves and Piggott, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings under Act III of 1907. The petitioner presented a petition asking that he should be adjudicated an insolvent. His petition complied with the provisions of Section 11, and contained a statement that he was unable to pay his debts, which exceeded Rs. 500. Notice went in the ordinary course to the creditors, some of whom were represented or appeared when the debtor was examined and opposed adjudication. The debtor was examined and stated that his debts exceeded Rs. 500 and that his means and property were quite insufficient to pay those debts. At the instance of the opposing creditors his brother was examined, and he produced certain documents connected with the property of the family to which the debtor belonged. The learned Additional Judge appears to have considered that the documents which were produced were devices for saving the property of the debtor from his creditors. One of these d...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Jwahir Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.48
1. This is an application under Order XXII, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on the record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such an Application. A learned Judge of this Court has referred the application to us for disposal, he being of opinion that under Order XXII, Rule 4, no application can be entertained unless it is filed within the period of limitation allowed by the Limitation Act, that is to say, within six months from the date of the decease of the respondent. We agree with the view taken by our learned colleague. The law seems to have been altered in this respect in the present Code of Civil Procedure. By Section 5 of the Limitation Act, that section can apply only to cases to which, besides the cases mentioned in the section itself, it is made applicable by any other provision of law. The section is not made applicable to an application under Rule 4 of Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Shitab Kuhwar Vs. Ghura
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1914
Reported in: (1914)ILR36All248
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment from two plots of sir land. It appears that the owner of the property made a mortgage. A decree for sale of the mortgaged property was made in the first instance granting a decree for sale of one of the two plots, and after some further litigation a decree for sale of the proprietary rights in the two plots, Whilst this litigation was pending, the representative of the mortgagor made a perpetual lease in favour of the defendant.2. The plaintiff, who purchased under a sale held in execution of the decree, brings the present suit for physical possession of the two plots, alleging that the perpetual lease was fraudulent and collusive. It is quite clear as a general rule that a plaintiff in a suit for ejectment claiming physical possession must show a right to possession against all the world. It, therefore, becomes of importance to see whether, if the perpetual lease had never been made, t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Beni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All363(1); 25Ind.Cas.352
Piggott, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur asking this Court to interfere in the case of one Beni who, as the explanation of the Magistrate concerned now makes it clear, has been convicted of committing a public nuisance under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20. The only facts found are that the said Beni skinned an animal which had died a natural death. In the absence of any further evidence I am not prepared to accept it as a sound principle of law that this act in itself constitutes a public nuisance. I set aside the conviction and sentence in this case, acquit Beni of the offence charged and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »