Allahabad Court March 1918 Judgments
Jahangira Vs. Gumanan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All518
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for a declaration which arose on the following state of facts. One Tota died, leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Gumanan and a daughter named Musammat Khajani. This daughter has been married, presumably since her father's death, and is now the mother of an infant son named Surju. Before the birth of the daughter's son, the nearest reversioners under the Hindu Law, after the life-estate of the widow and of the daughter, were two persons named Tulshi and Jahangira. They are distant male agnates, according to the pedigree set up in the plaint, and are equal in degree, their grand-fathers having been own brothers. Musammat Gumanan has contracted a second marriage-(the parties belong to the Jat caste) with Tulshi, one of the aforesaid reversioners, and has borne him children. She has now executed a deed of gift of one-half of her late husband's estate in favour of her sons by Tulshi. Jahangira brought the suit out of...
Tag this Judgment!The Bhargava Commercial Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All522
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. The facts of this case are simple. The appellant defendant pawned to the respondent Bank certain gold and silver ornaments as security for a loan in the year 1912. In January, 1914, the Bank pressed the defendant for payment and stated that they had an offer of Rs. 1,480 for the ornaments and that if the defendant did not pay within a week the ornaments would be fold for the value offered and a suit would he brought for the balance. The defendant in reply asked for full particulars of the offer and also asked for time for payment. In his reply, he stated that the ornaments were worth more than Rs. 2,400 and that he would hold the Bank responsible if they were sold for less than their value. The Bank on the 26th of February, 1914, sent in a statement of account and a list of the ornaments pawned and again gave the defendent fifteen days' time within which to pay, otherwise the Bank would sell. The Bank did not carry out its threat. On the 9th of May, 1914,...
Tag this Judgment!Gumanan and ors. Vs. Jahangira
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All393; 46Ind.Cas.186
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for a declaration which arose on the following state of facts. One Tota died, leaving him surviving a widow Musammat Gumanan and a daughter named Musammat Khajani. This daughter has been married, presumably since her father's death, and is now the mother of an infant son named Surju. Before the birth of the daughter's son, the nearest reversioners under the Hindu Law, after the life estate of the widow and of the daughter, were two persons named Tulshi and Jahangira. They are distant male agnates, according to the pedigree set up in the plaint, and are equal in decree, their grandfathers having been own brothers. Musammat Gumanan has contracted a second marriage (the parties belong to the Jat caste) with Tulshi, one of the aforesaid reversioners, and has borne him children. She has now executed a deed of gift of one-half of her late husband's estate in favour of her sons by Tulshi. Jahangira brought the suit out of which this appeal aris...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Lal Vs. the Bhargava Commercial Bank
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.462
1. The facts of this case are simple. The appellant-defendant pawned to the respondent Bank certain gold and silver ornaments as security for a loan in the year 1912. In January 1914 the Bank pressed the defendant for payment and stated that they had an offer of Rs. 1,480 for the ornaments and that if the defendant did not pay within a week the ornaments would be sold for the value offered and that a suit would 'be brought for the balance. The defendant in reply asked for full particulars of the offer and also asked for time for payment. In his reply he stated that the ornaments were worth more than Rs. 2,400 and that he would hold the Bank responsible if they were, sold for less than their value. The Bank on the 26th of February 1914 sent in a statement of account and a list of the ornaments pawned and again gave the defendant fifteen days' time within which to pay, otherwise the Bank would sell. The Bank did not carry out its threat. On the 9th of May 1914 the defendant again asked f...
Tag this Judgment!Chhote Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All249; 45Ind.Cas.500
P.C. Banerji, J.1. Chhote Lal, the applicant, was charged with having rescued his father, who had been arrested under the orders of the Revenue Court in execution of a decree passed by that Court, The Magistrate who tried him recorded the evidence for the prosecution, framed a charge against him and called upon him to plead. The record shows that the accused pleaded not guilty but refused to call witnesses. A date was fixed for the hearing of the case after the charge had been framed and the plea of not guilty had been entered; and on that date, for reasons stated in the judgment, the Magistrate trying the case passed an order of 'discharge.' This order was set aside by the District Magistrate and a further enquiry was ordered. The present application has been filed against the order of the District Magistrate directing a further enquiry by another Magistrate.2. It is contended that the order of the Magistrate who tried the case, though it is in terms an order of discharge, is in subst...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan DIn Vs. Mahmud Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.502
P.C. Banerji, J.1. Bhagwan Din is alleged to have taken an advance of Rs. 20 from Mahmud Ali, upon an agreement to supply him with certain stones from time to time according to the terms of a contract entered into by him with Mabtand Ali. He having failed to supply the stones, an application was made to a Magistrate under Act XIII of 1859 and the Magistrate made an order against Bhagwan Din. The learned District Magistrate is of opinion that the Act did not apply to a case like the present and has accordingly referred it to this Court with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate be set aside. I agwree with the view taken by the learned District Magistrate. The Act, as the preamble shows, is an Act for the granting of relief for fraudulent breach of contract on the part of artificers, work-man and labourers who have received money in advance on account of work which they have contracted to perform. Section 1 of the Act clearly shows that it applies to cases where an artifice...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Maturwa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR40All517
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The accused in this case was convicted under the Gambling Act. The Magistrate who convicted him ordered confiscation of the money which was found in his possession. The learned Sessions Judge has reported the casa to this Court with the recommendation that this portion of the learned Magistrate's order should be set aside as not being in conformity with law. It is clear from the language of Section 18 of the Gambling Act that all that could be confiscated were the instruments of gaming. This was so held in the case to which the learned Sessions Judge refers. Acceding therefore to the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge, I set aside so much of the order of the Magistrate as directs the-confiscation of the money found in the possession of the accused and direct that it be refunded to him....
Tag this Judgment!Maturwa Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All390; 46Ind.Cas.156
1. The accused in this case was convicted under the Gambling Act. The Magistrate who convicted him ordered confiscation of the money which was found in his possession. The learned Sessions Judge has reported the case to this Court, with the recommendation that this portion of the learned Magistrate's order should be set aside as not being in conformity with law. It is clear from the language of Section 13 of the Gambling Act that all that could be confiscated, were the instruments of gaming. This was so held in the case to which the learned Sessions Judge refers. Acceding, therefore, to the recommendations of the learned Sessions Judge, I set aside so much of the order of the Magistrate as directs the confiscation of the money found in the possession of the accused and direct that it be refunded to him....
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Sahai Vs. A.C. Bahree
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918All183(1); (1918)ILR40All515; 45Ind.Cas.985
Tudball and Abdul Raoof, JJ.1. The facts of this case are simple. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit against the defendant. Notice was issued, a written statement filed and issues were framed. One of the issues raised the question of the jurisdiction of the court. It was pleaded by the defendant that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This issue was taken up first at the request of the plaintiff and decided in favour of the defendant. The court ordered the plaint to be returned and awarded the defendant his costs. In drawing up the decree the pleader's fee was calculated at 5 per cent, according to rule 21 of Chapter XXI of the General Rules (Civil) for the Subordinate Courts. The plaintiff objected on the ground that this rule did not apply but that rule 25 of that chapter did apply. The lower court has held that the case falls within Rule 21. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that the case was not decidedon the merits; but it was clearly decided...
Tag this Judgment!Deoki Nandan Vs. Gapua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: 46Ind.Cas.373
Abdul Raoof, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff sued on the basis of a deed of the 6th of September 1911 to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 283 principal and Rs. 447 interest, total Rs. 730. together with costs and interest pendente lite and for the future, by enforcement of the hypothecation lien against eight black buffaloes. The defendant raised several pleas in defence; among them was the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court of first instance found that the bond had been executed and that the money was due, but it held that the suit was barred by limitation and on that ground it dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed. The lower Appellate Court held that the suit was one falling under Article 80 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, which allowed a period of three years from the date on which the bond became payable, and as the suit had been brought in the year 1915, it dismissed it as being barred by time. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »