Allahabad Court March 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.
Nathmal Behari Lal Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All418
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application fur revision seeking to set aside the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge at Cawnpore. The only facts before the Court are admitted. A consignment of sugar was sent from Dohri on the Sone to Cawnpore. Apparently after the waggon was loaded the doors were duly sealed in such a way that the Railway servants would be able to see whether or not the waggon was entered in the course of transit. From time to time during the journey this waggon and the other waggons composing the train were examined and the seals found intact. The examination continued until the last station but one before the arrival of the train at Cawnpore. At this last examination the seals were still found intact, but on the arrival of the train in Cawnpore the seals of the doors on five waggons were found to have been broken and six of the bags of sugar consigned by the plaintiff were found missing. The plaintiff had entered into a contract ...
izzat Ali Vs. Muhammad Sharapat-ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All355(2); (1917)ILR39All516
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Budaun dismissing a certain suit. The order as it stands is based upon a finding that the plaint discloses no cause of action; but it is possible that the District Judge may have understood himself to be acting under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. His order does in fact seem to turn upon a finding that it is clear from the statement of facts given in the plaint itself that the suit is one the cognizance of which is forbidden by the provisions of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, No. XVIII of 1850. It is impossible for us to uphold the order of the court below on the grounds on which it proceeds. In paragraph 11 of the plaint the cause of action is stated to be that the defendant took the plaintiff into custody, and secondly, that the defendant brought a false charge against the plaintiff, knowing the said charge to be false. The latter of these two allegations discloses on...
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Messrs Nathmall Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.130
1. This is an application for revision seeking to set aside the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge at Cawnpore. The only facts before the Court are admitted. A consignment of sugar was sent from Dehri on the Soan to Cawnpore; apparently after the waggon was loaded the doors were duly sealed in such a way that the Railway servants would be able to see whether or not the waggon was entered in the course of transit. From time to time during the journey this waggon and the other waggons composing the train were examined and the seals found intact. The, examination continued until the last station but one before the arrival of the train at Cawnpore. At this last examination the seals were still found intact but on the arrival of the train in Cawnpore the seals of the doors on five waggons were found to have been broken and six of the bags of sugar consigned by the plaintiff were found missing. The plaintiff had entered into a contract with the Railway at the time the goods were consign...
Dundiya and ors. Vs. Giyani Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All149; 39Ind.Cas.119
1. The facts out of which this second appeal has arisen are as follows: The father of the present plaintiffs-appellants on the 27th of June 1868 gave a usufructuary mortgage of the property now in suit, Khewat No. 64, to the predecessor in-title of the defendants. On the 13th of November 1870, he gave a simple mortgage of other property, Khewat No. 83, to the same mortgagee. On the 18th of July 1874, the mortgagee brought a suit to recover the amount due on the simple mortgage. The plaintiffs were minors. Their father 'was dead. They were made defendants and Musammat Sabhedra, their mother, was declared to be guardian on their account. It appears that she had applied to be appointed a certificated guardian of these minors; that the mortgagee had intervened in that proceeding and had objected to her being so appointed a certificated guardian, and that his objection had been successful. When the suit was brought on the 18th of July 1874, she filed a written statement in Court in which sh...
izzat Ali Vs. Muhammad Sharafatullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.553
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Budaun dismissing a certain suit. The order as it stands is based upon a finding that the plaint discloses no cause of action; but it is possible that the District Judge may have understood himself to be acting under Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. His order does in fact seem to turn upon a finding that it is clear from the statement of facts given in the plaint itself that the suit is one, the cognizance of which is forbidden by the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, XVIII of 1850. It is impossible for us to uphold the order of the Court below on the grounds on which it proceeds. In paragraph 11 of the plaint the cause of action is stated to be that the defendant took the plaintiff into custody, and secondly, that the defendant brought a false charge against the plaintiff, knowing the said charge to be false. The latter of these two allegations discloses on the...
Hafiz Amir Muhammad and anr. Vs. Wazir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All318; 39Ind.Cas.643
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by the plaintiffs-appellants. It has been dismissed by both the Courts below, on the finding that the suit was premature in that according to the terms of the agreement between the parses the mortgage was not redeemable within a period of ten years. The mortgage was created on the 8th of December 1909 and the present suit was brought in the year 1914. We have examined the document and completely fail to understand how the Courts below could have placed upon it the interpretation that the mortgage was not redeemable within a period of ten years. The relevant clauses are as follows: 'if within a period of ten years we have paid the whole of the mortgage-money in one lump sum, the mortgaged property specified below will be redeemed. If according to our promise, we do not pay the whole of the mortgage-money, the property will be sold outright and the aforesaid creditor by means of the present deed will be considered as in proprieta...
Firm, Tohar Mal-uttam Chand Vs. Suraj Bali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.953
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution. The facts are shortly as follows: The decree-holder appellant had a decree against the proprietor of the firm of Suraj Bali. Another creditor of Suraj Bali presented a petition for his adjudication as insolvent. The firm of the decree-holder was named as one of the creditors in the application. Sometime' later (but before any order of adjudication), Suraj Bali came forward with a proposal for a composition of 4-annas in the rupee. Notice of this application was sent to the creditors, including the decree-holder. The decree-holder took no notice and the composition proposal was accepted under the provisions of Section 27 of the Insolvency Act. The other creditors have since been paid 4 annas in the rupee. The decree-holder then presented an application to execute his decree. He was met by an objection on behalf of the judgment-debtor that the accepted proposal made in the insolvency matter barred the application for execution. T...
Jujhar Singh Vs. Pita Ram and Shankar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All626
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff in the court of the Munsif of Jhansi against two defendants for a declaration of title in respect of a varied assortment of property, including two houses, some crops, and a quantity of movable property, which, he alleges to belong to him.2. The first defendant had obtained a decree against the second defendant in the same court in the year 1911, for the sum of Rs. 386-7-4. In the year 1910, the second defendant became insolvent within the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court of the District Judge of Jhansi, No receiver was appointed, and the District Judge of Jhansi became empowered, under Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, to exercise the powers of a receiver. Being set in motion by the first defendant, the decree-holder or judgement-creditor aforesaid, the District Judge, as such receiver, attached the property which is the subject-matter of this action as being property of the inso...
Pita Ram Vs. Jujhar Singh and Shanker Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All346; 43Ind.Cas.573
1. This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif of Jhansi against two defendants for a declaration of title in respect of a varied assortment of property, including two houses, some crops and a quantity of moveable property, which he alleges to belong to him.2. The first defendant had obtained a decree against the second defendant in the same Court in the year 1911, for the sum of Rs. 386-7-4. In the year 1910, the second defendant became insolvent within the jurisdiction of the Insolvency Court of the District Judge of Jhansi. No Receiver was appointed, and the District Judge of Jhansi became empowered, under Section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, to 8xercise the powers of a Receiver. Being set in motion by the first defendant, the decree-holder or judgment-creditor aforesaid, the District Judge, as such Receiver, attached the property which is the subject-matter of this action, as being property of the insolvent, and it, therefor...
Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Gopi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All415
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A decree was obtained for Rs. 15,055. The decree-holder made an application for execution and certain property was advertised for sale. The decree-holder stated that the estimated value of the properly was Rs. 6,880. This was a calculation based on the revenue. One Hulas Rai, a witness for the decree-holder, stated that he was prepared to buy the property for Rs. 27,000. The judgement-debtor objected and said that the property was worth Rs. 35,000. The court estimated the value of the property at the sum which Hulas Rai stated he was prepared to give, namely, Rs. 27,000. The present appeal is from this order.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies and the case of Sivagavii Achi v. Subrahmania Ayyar (1903) I.L.R. 27 Mad 259 is cited, It is a full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court and is exactly in point. I agree with this ruling. The appeal lies, if at all, bec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »