Allahabad Court January 1917 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.
Hukumat Rai and anr. Vs. Padam Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All157; 38Ind.Cas.151
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 defendant 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 bar and that the suit was not maintainable. In appe...
Satola and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All267; 44Ind.Cas.592
Tudball, J.1. This case has been referred to this Court by the District Magistrate of Jhansi. The facts are simple on the evidence and as found by the Magistrate. The accused persons are certain Municipal servants who illegally and without justification seized and impounded cattle belonging to the complainant. A complaint was made before a Joint Magistrate under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act, and it was transferred by him to the Court of the Third Glass Magistrate for decision. The Magistrate found the accused guilty and directed them to pay Rs. 10 as compensation to the complainant under Section 22 of the Act. The District Magistrate admits in his order of reference that the case is trivial, but is of opinion that the lower Courts order was illegal and irregular, because the accused persons were servants of the Municipality and quite within their rights in impounding cattle damaging Municipal trees, and that the Court ought to have acted under Section 326 (1) of the Municipali...
Gopal Das Vs. Durga Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All357; 38Ind.Cas.649
1. It seems to us absolutely clear in the present case that the decree of the Court of first instance should be affirmed. Two properties were mortgaged to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. (We will call the properties 'T' and 'A'). Property T had already been mortgage 1 to the same mortgagee in the year 1888. A suit was brought on foot of the first mortgage and property T was sold and purchased by the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title. The present suit was subsequently instituted on foot of the second mortgage for the sale of property A. The question was, what was the liability of property A? The Court of first instance gave a decree for a rateable part of the amount of the second mortgage, having regard to the respective values of property T and property A. The defendants appealed and the lower Appellate Court, after considering what was the price paid by the plaintiff or his predecessor for the purchase of property T, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. A learned Judge of th...
Kallu and anr. Vs. Kallu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All382(1); 43Ind.Cas.854
1. The learned Additional Judge says: 'The copy of a wajtb-ul-arz filed by the plaintiff shows that there is a custom of pre-emption in the village Dullakberi. The ruling reported as Kanwar Digombar Singh v Eartwar Ahmed Sayeed Ehan 28 Ind. Cas. 34 : 13 A.L.J. 236 : 19 C.W.N. 393 : 17 M.L.T. 193 : 37 A. 129 : 28 M.L.J. 556 : 2 L.W. 303 : 21 C.L.J. 237 : 17 Bom. L.R. 393 : (1915) M.W.N. 58 : 42 I A. 10 (P.C.) goes to show that the wajib-ul-arz is a prima ftcie evidence of custom and it requires no other evidence to corroborate it.' There is no doubt that the extract from a wajib-ul-arz recording a custom of preemption is prima facie evidence of the existence of the custom, and it is quite true that their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case referred to say that it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to give instances in support of the entry, This does not, however, mean that the defendant, is not entitled to give evidence to show that no custom prevails in a case in which the plainti...
In Re: the Mahamandal Shashtra Prakashak Samity, Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All347; (1917)ILR39All334
George Knox, J.1. The application before me is an application under Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act, No. VII of 1913. It is presented by six persons who are share-holders of a company known and registered as the Mahamandal Shashtra Prakashak Company, Limited, Benares, which will hereafter be cited in this judgement as the Mahamandal Company. The prayer in the application is that the Mahamandal Company be wound up by the court under the provisions of Section 162 of the Companies Act of 1913. The application is opposed by other share-holders of the company. The amount of shares in the Mahamandal Company held by the applicants as set out is 413 fully paid up shares worth Rs. 4,130. It is alleged in the application that the company has been working at a loss since the year 1912, and that the total losses up to the end of the year 1915 amounted to over Rs. 7,600, that the total liabilities of the company on the 31st of December, 1915, amounted to over Rs. 24,000; further, that in th...
Gokul Nathji Vs. Raman Lalji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All343
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This was a suit on a promissory note. The defendant, apart from his defence on the merits, raised in his written statement a plea that one Bhiki Mal, who purported to sign and verify the plaint in the capacity of general attorney of the plaintiff, had no authority to do so. The learned Munsif, in framing an issue on this plea, went a step further, He seems to have felt some doubt as to whether there had been a regular and valid presentation of the plaint in his court, He accordingly framed an issue as to whether the plaint had been 'properly signed, verified and presented '. In determining the issue, however, he dealt only with the question of signature and verification of the plaint, and held that Bhiki Mal had no authority to sign or verify the plaint. He dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge has reversed this finding and remanded the suit for decision on the merits. The appeal before us is against this order of remand. On...
Goswami Sri Raman Lalji Vs. Goswami Sri Gokul Nathji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All90; 39Ind.Cas.462
1. This was a suit on a promissory note. The defendant, apart from his defense on the merits, raised in his written statement a plea that one Bhiki Mal, who purported to sign and verify the plaint in the capacity of general attorney of the plaintiff, had no authority to do so. The learned Munsif, in framing an issue on this plea, went a step further. He seems to have felt some doubt as to whether there had been a regular and valid presentation of the plaint in his Court. He accordingly framed an issue as to whether the plaint had been properly signed, verified and presented.' In determining the issue, however, he dealt only with the question of signature and verification of the plaint, and held that Bhiki Mal had no authority to sign or verify the plaint. He dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge has reversed this finding and remanded the suit for decision on the merits. The appeal before us is against this order of remand. On the question of verific...
In Re: Mahamandal Shashtra Prakashak Samity, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.570a
George Knox, J.1. The application before me is an application under Section 162 of the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913. It is presented by six persons who are shareholders of a Company known and registered as the Mahamandal Shastra Prakashak Company, Limited, Benares, which will hereafter be cited in this judgment as the Mahamandal Company. The prayer in the application is that the Mahamandal Company be wound up by the Court under the provisions of Section 162 of the Companies Act of 1913. The application is opposed by other shareholders of the Company. The amount of shares in the Mahamandal Company held by the applicants as set nut is 413 fully paid up shares worth Rs. 4,130. It is alleged in the application that the Company has been working at a loss since the year 1912, and that the total losses up to the end of the year 1915 amounted to over Rs. 7,600, that the total liabilities of the Company on the 31st of December 1915 amounted to over Rs. 24,000, further that in the balance sh...
Kalpu Rai and anr. Vs. Beni Madho Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All248; 37Ind.Cas.835
George Edward Knox, J.1. The sole question argued before me in this second appeal is whether the document which purports to be a deed of sale was in fact a deed of sale or whether it should be read with other documents and be held to be a mortgage-deed. On the 24th of June 1856, Gajadhar Rai executed a deed, No. 39C on the record, in favour of Bhola Sahu and others, and indubitably if this were the only deed, there can be no question that there was a deed of sale in favour of Bhola Sahu and others. There is, however, another deed, No. 35C, dated 25th June 1856, and the further fact that on that date Bhola Sahu and others instituted a suit against Gajadhar Rai for possession. A deed of compromise was filed the same day, and the suit was decided in accordance with the compromise. The main condition in the last deed was that if by Jeth Sudi 15, 1266 Fasli the defendant paid in the amount mentioned in the first of the deeds then that deed and the decree passed in the case were to be set as...
Ghulam Safdar Khan and ors. Vs. Sukhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All237; 38Ind.Cas.573
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The following facts will explain the position of the parties. The plaintiff has brought a suit for sale as against Jag Ram and Net Ram and the present defendants-appellants on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed in her favour by Jag Ram and Net. Ram on the 14th of October 902. Her mortgage covers more than the property which is in' dispute before us on appeal. Part of the property mortgaged to her is the village Rasulpur. This village originally belonged to Nand Ram and others, who on the 3rd of January 1874 and the 10th of June 1875 made two simple mortgages in favour of Kirpa Ram. The same owners, Nand Ram, etc, on the 15th of June 1883 executed a mortgage in favour of Sundar and Ghulam Safdar Khan; Sundar being however only a benamidar of Ghulam Safdar Khan. In 1886 Kirpa Ram brought a suit on the basis of the mortgage-deeds of 1874 and 1875, but he failed to make Ghulam Safdar Khan a party thereto. He obtained a decree for sale of the property and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »