Allahabad Court January 1917 Judgments
Mathuka Nath Vs. Cheddu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All355
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ. 1. This in a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff in the year 1891, appointed one Hardeo as his agent for the purposes of managing certain zamindari, collecting its income and incurring necessary expenditure. The appointment was made under a duly registered mukhtarnama, wherein it was laid down that the agent was to render his accounts every six months. Hardeo died on the 9th of March, 1911. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff against the sons of Hardeo on the 7th of March, 1914, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,367 odd as due to the plaintiff on account for the period from the year 1891 to 1911. The court below has held that the plaintiff was not entitled to go into any accounts for a period more than six years prior to the suit. It has gone into thy accounts from March, 1908, to March, 1911, and has found on these accounts that nothing is due to the plaintiff. It has therefore dismissed the suit. The plaintiff raises two points; first, that he was entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Nath Vs. Chheddu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All14; 39Ind.Cas.626
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal The plaintiff in the year 1891 appointed one Hardeo as his agent for the purposes of managing certain zemindari, collecting its income and incurring necessary expenditure. The appointment was made under a duly registered mukhtanama, wherein it was laid down that the agent was to render his accounts every six months. Hardeo died on the 9th of March 1911. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff against the sons of Hardeo on the 7th of March 1914, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,367 odd as due to the plaintiff on account for the period from the years 1891 to 1911. The Court below has held that the plaintiff was not entitled to go into any accounts for a period more than six years prior to the suit. It has gone into the accounts from March 1908 to March 1911, and has found on these accounts that nothing is due to the plaintiff. It has, therefore, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff raises two points; first, that he was entitled to go into all accounts from 1891 ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat NaraIn Dei Vs. Musammat Parmeshari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All213; 40Ind.Cas.124
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed under the Succession Certificate Act. It arises under the following circumstances :-- The applicant, the appellant before this Court, is the widow of one Umrao Singh. She applied to the District Judge for a certificate entitling her to collect the debts of her late husband, to the amount of Rs. 1,246-11-0. The application was opposed by certain persons, the respondents now before us, who claim to be interested as reversioners in the estate of Umrao Singh. The District Judge decided in favour of the present appellant, but held that the succession certificate should be granted only subject to her furnishing security for the amount of the debts specified in her application. He fixed the amount at Rs. 1,250, and we think it is worthwhile to notice this point, because it would seem that, by some copyist's error, the lady was left under the impression that she was ordered to furnish security to the amount of Rs. 1,750. Some months later th...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. Musammat Rajwanta Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All302(2); 38Ind.Cas.157
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances:--Musammat Rajwanta Kunwar and others were the owners of shares in certain villages. Gajadhar Singh and others were the owners of shares in certain other villages, Musammat Rajwanta and her party agreed with Gajadhar and his party to exchange the shares which they owned for the shares which Gajadhar and his party owned in the other villages. The deed of exchange contained a provision that if either party Should lose the property which they were getting under the exchange, then they would get back the property which they were giving in exchange. The plaintiff instituted two suits, one against Musammat Rajwanta and her property, and the other against Gajadhar and his property, claiming possession by right of pre-emption over portions of the property in each case. As soon as the suit was instituted, a further deed was executed between the parties cancelling the deed of exchange. The lower Appellate Court has held that as a result the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairon Vs. Musammat Rajania
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All177; 38Ind.Cas.299
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This application for revision was filed under the following circumstances: An ex parte decree was obtained by the applicant Bhairon against one Gokul in respect of a debt said to have been due by one Sheodial. In execution of that decree certain property was attached as the property of the judgment-debtor. Musamrnat Rajania preferred an objection asking for the release of the property on various grounds. She contended that the property belonged to her and had been attached from her possession; that the property was not saleable inasmuch as Sheodial was an agriculturist, and that the decree was invalid and illegal and had been passed without jurisdiction. The Court found the first two contentions to be untenable and held that the property had not been seized from the possession of the objector. It proceeded, however, to consider whether th6 decree was legally valid. It held that as a suit in respect of this very debt had been filed and dismissed on a previous occasion...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All328; 39Ind.Cas.310
George Knox, J.1. Jagdeo was committed to the Court of Session on the 30th November 1916 for an offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. When he came before the Committing Magistrate, it is evident that that officer entertained doubts about his soundness of mind and his capability of making a defence. He took evidence, examined the Civil Surgeon at some length and apparently came to the conclusion upon the evidence he took that the accused was capable of making his defence. When examined under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Jagdeo had said that he was not in his senses when he tried to rob Abdul Samad. Under such circumstances the Court of Session should have acted under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and tried the fact whether on the 12th December, the date upon which the accused was called on to plead, the accused was or was not of unsound mind and capable or incapable of making his defence?2. This fact should have been tried with the aid of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.J. Arratoon Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All172; 38Ind.Cas.143
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This and the connected Revision No. 127 of 1916 arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the East Indian Railway Company for damages for the destruction of four Orpington hens which had been consigned to the Railway at the Allahabad Station for despatch to Kasganj. The hens were received by the parcels clerk at Allahabad, but when they reached Kasganj they were found to be dead. The consignee refused to take delivery and thereupon the present suit was brought by the plaintiff, the consignor, for recovery of damages. The suit was resisted on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the Railway; that there was a risk note, and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have ascertained what arrangements the Railway could make for the despatch of the birds. The Court below has found that there was negligence on the part of the Railway, but it made a decree for Rs. 8 only on the ground that the plaintiff had not declared the value of the birds whi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ikram-ud-dIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All348
Walsh, J.1. In this case the verdict of the jury dearly cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed. I think it is my duty to order a retrial for dacoity, if the prosecution think there is evidence of dacoity, or for any act of robbery or violence included in the original charge of dacoity which they think they can prove to the satisfaction of the jury.2. The ground upon which I quash the conviction is that there was something more than a mere misdirection. There is a finding which, as it stands, convicts the accused of an offence wholly unknown to law. The charge was a charge against nine persons for having taken part in a dacoity themselves in addition to a tenth person, who was the approver. It may be that there were other persons who took part in this dacoity and that evidence was laid before the jury that there were other persons. But it is quite clear that the attention of the jury was not drawn to such evidence, if it existed, by the Judge in his summing up He began his char...
Tag this Judgment!Padam NaraIn Vs. Hukumai Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All353
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The facts connected with this appeal are shortly as follows. One Nand Kishore was adjudicated an insolvent. The receiver in the insolvency matter attached certain timber alleging it to be the property of the insolvent. Two parties claimed the timber, viz., the plaintiff in the present suit and the principal defendants Hukumat Rai and son. The plaintiff in the present suit as well as Hukumat Rai and son objecting to the attachment applied under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to set aside the attachment. The Judge in the insolvency matter decided that the property did not belong to the insolvent, and incidentally decided that it belonged to Hukumat Rai and son. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which' dismissed the appeal. Meanwhile the plaintiff brought the present suit claiming the timber as against Hukumat Rai and son. The Munsif dismissed the suit on the preliminary point that the previous proceedings were a ...
Tag this Judgment!ikramuddIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All173; 39Ind.Cas.331
Walsh, J.1. In this case the verdict of the Jury clearly cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed. I think it is my duty to order a re-trial for dacoity, if the prosecution think there is evidence of dacoity, or for any act of robbery or violence included in the original charge of dacoity which they think they can prove to the satisfaction of the Jury.2. The ground upon which I quash the conviction is that there was something more than a mere misdirection. There is a finding which, as it stands, convicts the accused of an offence wholly unknown to law. The charge was a charge against nine persons for having taken part in a dacoity themselves in addition to a tenth person who was the approver. It may be that there were other persons who took part in this dacoity and that evidence was laid before the Jury that there were other persons. But it is quite clear that the attention of the Jury was not drawn to such evidence, if it existed, by the Judge in his summing up. He began his ch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »