Allahabad Court April 1917 Judgments
Sayed Gulzar Ali Vs. Syed Siadat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All373; 43Ind.Cas.2
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption. Both the pre-emptor and the vendee are relatives of the, vendor but according to the finding of the lower Appellate Court, the pre-emptor is one degree nearer than the vendee. The Court of First Instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. Both parties admitted that the custom of pre-emption prevailed. Both parties relied upon the entry in the wajib-ul-arz as setting forth what that custom was. If the wajib-ul-arz was as interpreted by the; Lower Appellate Court, the judgment of that Court would have been quite correct. It has, however, omitted to appreciate that, the entry in the wajib-ul-arz expressly states that the offer is to be made to the relations in their order of relationship. This being so, we think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court on this preliminary point was not correct. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1917
Reported in: AIR1918All369(1); 42Ind.Cas.913
1. This is a very small matter. The case has not been satisfactorily tried, and strictly speaking it ought to be sent back to be tried again. The Magistrate begins by stating that the offence charged is 'not taking proper care of his dog.' That is not the offence nor is it an offence known to law. The offence with which the accused was charged was knowingly or negligently omitting to take such order with his dog as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal.' In the case of a ferocious animal it is quite clear that to allow it liberty is in itself likely to cause danger to human beings. But in the case of a dog it must be shown that it is likely to bite human beings. There is no presumption in the case of an ordinary domestic dog that it is likely to bite human beings. There are many dogs who are likely and there are some dogs who are actually trained to do so. But it must be proved against the owner of the dog that this particular dog had a t...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.995
George Knox, J.1. A paper was presented apparently before the Munsarim of the Second Additional Judge's Court of Aligarh. It bears date the 12th of December 1916. It is paper No. 7A on the record. It is written in English, purports to be signed in Urdu by one Mathura Parsada bakalam khud. There is an endorsement upon the back of the paper. This endorsement is evidently by an India rubber stamp and so far as it is legible it runs thus:Solemnly affirmed before me by Mathura Prasada who was identified by Babu Mohan Lai Tingal, a Pleader at this (here follows a word illegible) having the contents hereof admitted the same to be correct.Nawal Kishore, Munsarim, Second Additional Judge's Court.2. The allegations made in it are:(a) I solemnly affirm on oath that A. Hamilton, Esq., I. C. S., Magistrate of Etah, is a Member and Chairman of the Sub-Committee of Buildings of the Municipal Board of Kasganj and that he took an active interest in sanctioning the prosecution of Balkishen appellant.(b)...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Prasad and ors. Vs. Sarnam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All500
Viscount Haldane, J.1. In this case no difficult question of law arises, and their Lordship are perpared to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to His Majesty upon the appeal.2. It is a suit with regard to a mortgage made on the 21st of September, 1885, by three Hindus subject to the Mitakshara law who joined in borrowing Rs. 1,200 on the security of the property of the joint family of which they were the heads. There is nothing special in the terms of the mortgage, which do not go beyond what is stated. It is contended that although, according to the decisions of this Board, that mortgage is prima facie invalid, as being for neither an antecedent debt nor for any proved necessity of the joint family, it still may be held to be valid on the doctrine laid down by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mahabeer Prasad v. Ramyad Singh (1873) 12 B.L.R. 90 : 20 W.R. 192. There, the head of a joint family and his son, who was of age, united in attempting to raise money. The...
Tag this Judgment!Hemraj and ors. Vs. Musammat Bibi Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All299; 39Ind.Cas.947
P.C. Banerjee, J.1. In my opinion this appeal is untenable. The facts are these: A suit was brought in the Court of the Assistant Collector which was partly decreed and partly dismissed. The defendants filed an appeal from the decree on the 25th of July 1916. On the 17th of August 1916 they withdrew the appeal and on the same date the appeal was, as the record shows, dismissed; so that on the 17th of August 1916 it ceased to be a pending appeal. On the 24th of August 1916 the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the original suit, filed objections under Order XLI, Rule 22, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge refused to hear the objections on the ground that the appeal having already been withdrawn before the objections were filed and there being no pending appeal, no objections could be filed in the case. Prom this decision the present appeal has been filed and the fourth paragraph of Rule 22, Order XLI, has been relied upon. In my opinion the Court below was right. Under...
Tag this Judgment!Kesho Das Vs. Anup Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR39All547
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. An application was made by one Jamna Das, to be adjudicated an insolvent. Lala Anup Kumar had obtained a decree against Jumna Das and he had attached property of the judgement-debtor and the property was about to be sold. Swami Kesho Das, alleged to be another creditor of Jamna Das, made an application to the District Judge contending that if the property was sold at the suit of Anup Kumar, the other creditors would be prejudiced, because Anup Kumar would probably get a larger portion of the assets. He prayed that pending the disposal of the insolvency application the sale proceedings pending in the Subordinate Judge's court should be stayed. The learned Judge in a somewhat summary manner, made the following order: 'The application is therefore allowed. Injunction will issue staying the sale pending the result of the insolvency petition.' The present appeal is by Lala Anup Kumar agains...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Anurudh Kunwar Vs. Swami Kesho Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All272; 39Ind.Cas.783
1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. An application was made by one Jamna Das to be adjudicated an insolvent. Lala Anurudh Kunwar had obtained a decree against Jamna Das and he had attached property of the judgment-debtor and the property was about to be sold. Swami Kesho Das, alleged to be another creditor of Jamna Das, made an application to the District Judge contending that if the property was sold at the suit of Anurudh Kunwar, the other creditors would be prejudiced because Anurudh Kunwar would probably get a larger portion of the assets. He prayed that pending the disposal of the insolvency application the sale proceedings pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court should be stayed. The learned Judge in a some what summary manner made the following order: 'The application is, therefore, allowed. Injunction will issue staying the sale pending the result of the insolvency petition.' The present appeal is by Lala Anurudh Kunwar against this order. It is an admitted fact...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar and anr. Vs. Bhiman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All415; 42Ind.Cas.896
1. The plaintiffs now appellants are the zemindars of the mahal in which the land in dispute is situate. The defendant is alleged to le a tenant of the plaintiffs, and this was admitted by the defendant in his written statement. We have, therefore, an ordinary cape of a landlord and tenant to deal with. The landlords allege that years ago the defendant entered upon the land in dispute and built a kacha room thereon. The landlords have brought this suit for the ejectment of the tenant from this piece of land. The defendant's reply was that the land in dispute is the got of the defendant, that he has been in adverse proprietary possession for a long time past, that his cattle are tied there, that the landlords have never been in possession daring the period of limitation and that the suit is, therefore, time-barred. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The landlord went in appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal, holding that the possession of the tenant ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Indu and ors. Vs. Musammat Tilok Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All166(2); 40Ind.Cas.47
1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:-- In the year 1891 a suit for sale on a mortgage was brought against two persons, Gobind Singh and Jagmohan Singh, the minor son of Raghubir Singh. Of these two persons Jagmohan Singh pleaded that he was no longer a member of the family as he had been adopted into another family and had no interest in the mortgaged property. On the 18th of May 1892 the case was decided and an ex parte decree was granted against Gobind Singh who alone was held liable, and the suit as against Jagmohan Singh failed. In the decree it was set forth that if the mortgaged property was insufficient to satisfy the debt, the balance should be recoverable out of the other properties of the judgment-debtor who was the brother of Raghubir Singh. This decree was subsequently set aside, the suit was re-heard and on the 13th of June 1896 it was decreed as against Gobind Singh alone. On the 12th of June 1899 the decree was confirmed. On appeal on the 17th...
Tag this Judgment!Lalta Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All152; 40Ind.Cas.505
1. This application in revision raises a question of jurisdiction. The facts, so far as we are concerned with them, may be briefly put as follows:-The plaintiffs are residents of Bareilly. The defendants are commission agents who do business in Bombay. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants came to Bareilly, there made a contract as commission agents for the sale and purchase of cotton and grain etc., under what is known as the pukka arhat system and they agreed to render accounts at Bareilly and. to make all payments of amounts remaining due after rendition of accounts at Bareilly. Among other defences the defendants pleaded that the Bareilly Court had no jurisdiction, they alleged that the contract was made at Bombay, that the account was to be rendered at Bombay and that it had been agreed that any amount due thereunder was payable at Bombay. Neither party gave any evidence on the question. This point of jurisdiction was treated as a preliminary point. The plaintiffs' Pleader s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »