Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1919)ILR61All602
1. We have come to the conclusion that this application must be granted. The circumstances of the case are exceptional and the form in which the matter comes before us is also exceptional. We do not propose to lay down any general proposition as to what ought or ought not to guide this Court in interfering in revision with what may be called preliminary interlocutory or subsidiary orders made by the courts below. In this particular case a substantial dispute has arisen with regard to a contract made between two business men carrying on business respectively at Agra and Delhi. The purchasers under the contract, having reason, as they allege, to complain of the performance of the contract, sued the vendors for damages in the Subordinate Judge's court at Agra. The defendants were the vendors carrying on business at Delhi, and at the earliest possible opportunity they took the objection that, inasmuch as the contract was made at Delhi and was by its terms to be per formed outside the Agra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 51Ind.Cas.208
Stuart, J.1. The District Magistrate of Hamirpur has convicted Malua under the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs 20. The facts are as follows:-Malua is a trolley man on the G. I. P. Railway and has for many years been employed in his spare time by officers on the line as a shikari. On the 2nd of January 1919 Malua was seen by a Police Constable carrying a double-barrelled gun. The Police Constable asked him what right he had to carry the gun. Malua explained that he had been sent by Mr. Barton, Resident Engineer of the Railway, with the gun and some cartridges to track and despatch a sambhar which Mr. Barton had wounded the day before. He substantiated this story absolutely by producing a written authority from Mr. Barton directing him to carry the gun and despatch the sambhar. This was all. For this Malua has been convicted by the District Magistrate and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20. Had there been any case in law against Malua the pros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All295; 51Ind.Cas.331
1. We have come to the conclusion that this application must be granted. The circumstances of the case are exceptional and the form in which the matter comes before us is also exceptional. We do not propose to lay down any general proposition as to what ought or ought not to guide this Court in interfering in revision with what may be called preliminary, interlocutory or subsidiary orders made by the Courts below. In this particular case a substantial dispute has arisen with regard to a contract made between two business men carrying on business respectively at Agra and Delhi. The purchasers under the contract, having reason, as they allege, to complain of the performance of the contract, sued the vendors for damages in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Agra The defendants were the venders carrying on business at Delhi and at the earliest possible opportunity they took the objection that, inasmuch as the contract was made at Delhi and was by its terms to be performed outside the Agra ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All257; 51Ind.Cas.65
1. A preliminary objection was raised when this second appeal was called on for hearing. It was to the effect that this Court as at present constituted is not competent to hear this or any appeal. The Court consists to-day of an Acting Chief Justice and five Judges, of whom two are Barristers, two are members of the Covenanted Civil Service and one is a person who has held judicial office not inferior to that of Principal Sudder Ameen for a period of not less than five years. As not less than one-third of the above-mentioned Judges are Barristers, and not less than one-third are members of the Covenanted Civil Service, this constitution is in accord with the provisions contained in the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 and the directions of the Letters Patent issued by Her late Imperial Majesty under date the seventeenth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six.2. The Indian High Courts Act, 1861, was repealed by the Government of India Act, 1915, and fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All268; (1919)ILR61All609
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage, dated the 27th of August, 1900. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the mortgagees, and some of the defendants are mortgagors and the rest are the legal representatives of the other mortgagors. The principal amount secured was Rs. 900. Interest was payable at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum and compound interest with half-yearly rests. The amount claimed is Rs. 6,745-4-0, after giving credit for Rs. 2,600 admitted to have been received. Some of the defendants denied the mortgage, and also asserted that there was no family necessity for incurring the loan. The court below has found that the loan was incurred for payment of past debts secured on family property, but it was of opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that there was any necessity for borrowing money at the high rate of interest provided for in the mortgage. It accordingly reduced the rate of interest to simple interest at 18 per cent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 51Ind.Cas.52
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage, dated the 27th of August 1900. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the mortgagees and some of the defendants are mortgagors and the rest are the legal representatives of the other mortgagors. The principal amount secured was Rs. 900. Interest was payable at the rate of 24 per cent, per annum and compound interest with half yearly rests, The amount claimed is Rs. 6,745-4.0, after giving credit for Rs. 2,600 admitted to have been received. Some of the defendants denied the mortgage and also asserted that there was no family necessity for incurring the loan. The Court below has found that the loan was incurred for payment of past debts secured on family property, but it was of opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that there was any necessity for borrowing money at the high rate of interest provided for in the mortgage. It accordingly reduced the rate of interest to simple interest at 18 per cent, per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1919All289; 51Ind.Cas.73
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by way of conditional sale made on the 19th of January 1861. The mortgagees made an application for foreclosure proceedings under Regulation XVII of 1806 on the 25th May 1882. Notice of those proceedings was issued as required by the provisions of the Regulation and on the 15th of July 1882, the District Judge recorded an order to the effect that the proceedings had taken place. If these proceedings were regularly held and notice was properly served, the title of the mortgagees by way of conditional sale became absolute on the expiry of the year of grace. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondents that as the mortgagees did not institute a suit for a declaration of their right as absolute proprietors of the mortgaged property, the mortgage must be deemed still to subsist and the mortgagors or some of them are entitled to redeem the mortgage. Reliance is placed on the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 51Ind.Cas.173
Mullick, J.1. The petitioner in this rule lodged information before the Police charging certain parsons with committing dacoit. The Police investigated the charge and found it to be false and reported the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Purneah, requesting that the petitioner might be prosecuted under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, for preferring a false charge. In the meantime the petitioner lodged a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate maintaining that his information to the Police was true and asking that an enquiry might be made into the complaint. The Sub Divisional Magistrate thereupon, on the 8th of September 1916, directed that the petition should be treated as a complaint and should be inquired into judicially and on the 22nd of September, he issued processes upon the petitioner's witnesses for an inquiry to be hold on the 18th of October. On the 30th of October, when the witnesses of the petitioner were present in Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate tran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1919)ILR61All592
1. The two appeals Nos. 419 and 420 are connected and arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents for redemption of a mortgage. They stated in their plaint that the mortgage was executed by one Musammat Phulbasi on the 3rd of June, 1876, in favour of Bhairon Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The mortgage was in lieu of Rs. 300 and was with possession. Musammat Phulbasi died leaving her surviving a son called Ram Sundar. He executed a sale deed in respect of the mortgaged property in favour of the plaintiffs. The latter served a notice on the defendants asking for redemption on the 27th of April, 1915, alleging that the mortgage had been satisfied by the appropriation of the timber on the property. The defendant declined to make over possession of the mortgaged property, and on the 18th of June, 1915, the suit out of which the two appeals have arisen was instituted by them for redemption. In addition to the recovery of the property without payment, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1919)ILR61All623
1. The facts connected with this appeal are shortly as follows: More than a year before the institution of the present suit certain property was attached in execution of a decree. An objection was put forward by the plaintiff's vendor that the property was not the property of the judgment-debtor, and, therefore, not liable to attachment. The objector not only stated the nature of his objection but he made an application to summon his witnesses. Upon a date fixed for the hearing of the case he was not present, but the case was adjourned until another date, to enable him to appear. Upon the adjourned date he did not appear, and the court below made an order disallowing the objection in the absence of the objector. The present suit was instituted by a purchaser from the objector more than a year after the objection of his vendor had been disallowed in the manner stated. The court of first instance held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Article 11 of the Limitation Act. The low...
Tag this Judgment!