Allahabad Court May 1919 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.
Mohammad Abdul Baqi Khan Vs. Dr. Siraj-ul-hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.67
1. This is a question of procedure arising out of an election petition consequent upon a recent Municipal election in Allahabad which has been referred to us by the Commissioner, the tribunal appointed for the trial of the petition, such reference being in his opinion a question of law under Section 23, sub Section 2, Clause (e) of the Municipalities Act.2. The point may be shortly stated in this way: Is it competent for an unsuccessful candidate, petitioning against the election of more than one successful candidate to join a claim that all or any of the successful candidates, being more than one be unseated in one petition? In this particular case there were six candidates, three of whom were elected, the present petitioner being the 4th, two other persons who were formerly respondents and have been struck out being 5th and 6th on the poll. The petition claims that upon various; grounds raising questions of legality, corrupt practices, personation and so forth, the three successful c...
Parmeshwari Das Vs. Jagan Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All315; 51Ind.Cas.163
Rafique, J.1. The applicant in this case is one Parmeshwari Das, who prosecuted the opposite party on charges of rioting and illegal confinement. The case was made over to a Bench of Honorary Magistrates who after taking the evidence made an order on the 18th of January 1919 discharging the opposite party of the offence of rioting and illegal confinement. The Bench, however, framed a charge-sheet under Section 323 and fixed the 10th of February 1919 as the date for hearing. In the meantime the applicant Parmeshwari Das has applied to the District Magistrate for transfer of his case from the Bench of Honorary Magistrates and his application was disallowed. On the 10th of February 1919 when the case came up for hearing, the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, without proceeding any further with the case, made an order that as the opposite party had been discharged by them on the 18th of January 1919 the case could not proceed under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was stru...
Kalyan Mal and anr. Vs. Kishan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All102; (1919)ILR61All643
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Ajmer Courts Regulation I of 1877. In our opinion, on the facts which have been found, the case is remarkably clear and simple. The courts of Ajmer have taken the right view though they have not expressed very happily the precise articles under the Limitation Act which, they think, destroy the defence set up. The facts show that there were originally two contracts of bailment under Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 400 gold mohurs having been entrusted to Musammat Chun Kunwar, to some extent, through her husband, and certain pictures and manuscripts to Sobhag Mal, for specific purposes. Those contracts of bailment or deposit conferred upon the person to whom the goods were entrusted, variously called the bailee or the depositary, lawful possession. To entitle the owner to sue and repossess himself by suit of the goods, or to recover damages for their loss, if they are not restored to him, ho must make a demand. He may of course sue in...
Kalyan Mal and ors. Vs. Kishen Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.45
1. This is a reference under Section 18 of the Ajmere Courts Regulation I of 1877. In our opinion, on the facts which have been found, the case is remarkably clear and simple. The Courts of Ajmere have taken the right view though they have not expressed very happily the precise articles under the Limitation Act which they think destroy the defence set up. The facts show that there were originally two contracts of bailment under Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act; 400 gold mohurs having been entrusted to Musammat Chun Kuar, to some extent, through her husband, and certain pictures and manuscripts to Sobhag Mal, for specific purposes, Those contrasts of bailment or deposit conferred upon the person to whom the goods were entrusted, variously called the bailee or the depositee, lawful possession, to entitle the owner to sue and re-possess himself by suit of the goods, or to recover damage for their loss; if they are not restored to him he must make a demand. He may, of course, sue in c...
Rampat Rai Vs. Harihar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All447(1); 95Ind.Cas.405
1. The subject-matter of the suit to which this Letters Patent appeal relates was clearly a Small Cause Court suit. The amount claimed was below Rs. 500, no second appeal lay. The learned Judge who decided the appeal had no jurisdiction to hear it and no jurisdiction to pass the decree. The appeal is decreed. The decree of this Court is set aside and that of the lower Appellate Court restored. We make no order as to costs....
Ford Macdonald and Company Limited Vs. Puran Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All635
1. This was a suit brought by a firm, Messrs. Ford, MacDonald & Co., Ltd., against their former agent, Puran Mal, and another man, Badri Prasad, who is not before us. The plaintiff company is now a limited liability company. It was formerly a firm of considerable standing and carried on an extensive business, a large portion of which was devoted to the making and selling of bricks. While it remained in its original form as a firm and for some two years after the formation of the limited company, the present appellant, who was sued by the plaintiff company, was their agent to manage the Saharanpur branch and others. There were, in addition to the agencies committed to his charge, other agencies, Badri Prasad being the agent for the Agra branch, which included a sub-agency at Muttra. The defendant Puran Mal worked for this firm for very many years, and it is not unimportant, having regard to the charges now made against him, to bear in mind that he was given, according to the evidence in...
Jauhari Singh Vs. Ganga Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All275; (1919)ILR61All631; 51Ind.Cas.107
1. This and the connected appeal No. 89 of 1917 arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff appellant on the basis of two mortgages. One of these mortgages was executed on the 3rd of February 1902 by Kashi Ram in favour of the plaintiff, Jauhari Singh and his brother, Balwant Singh. The other mortgage is dated the 12th of April, 1902, and was executed by Ganga Sahai, the brother of Kashi Ram, in favour of the same mortgagees. On the 80th of June, 1913, Balwant Singh alone took a usufructuary mortgage from the two mortgagors in respect of the whole of the property mortgaged by them and the consideration for the usufructuary mortgage was the amount of the two simple mortgages of 1902, mentioned above. Jauhari Singh alleged that he had a half share in the two mortgages and he brought those suits to recover his half share of the mortgage money He made parties to the suit the mortgagors and his own brother Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh's defence was that the amount of the two mortgages h...
Puran Mal Vs. Ford and Macdonald and Company, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All440; 52Ind.Cas.373
Walsh, J.1. This was a suit brought by a firm, Messrs. Ford and MacDonald and Co., Ltd., against their former agent Puran Mal and another man Badri Prasad who is not before us. The plaintiff Company is now a limited liability Company. It was formerly a firm of considerable standing and carried on an extensive business, a large portion of which was devoted to the making and selling of bricks. While it remained in its original form as a firm and for some two years after the formation of the limited Company, the present appellant, who was sued by the plaintiff Company, was their agent to manage the Saharanpur branch and others. There were in addition to the agencies committed to his charge other agencies, Badri Prasad being the agent for the Agra branch which included a sub-agency at Muttra. The defendant Puran Mal worked for this firm for very many years, and it is not unimportant, having regard to the charges now made against him, to bear in mind that he was given, according to the evid...
Hoti Lal Vs. Chuttan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1919
Reported in: AIR1919All262; 51Ind.Cas.15
1. An elaborate argument has been addressed to us in support of the appellant. We think the case may be decided upon a short and simple ground. The suit was not one either in form or in substance for determination of the rate of rent. The plaintiff clearly claimed arrears of rent at the rate mentioned in the plaint and he did so under Section 33 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The original holding of 55 bighas had been determined by proceedings for ejectment of the defendant from that holding. The plaintiff actually dispossessed the defendant from a large portion of the holding but as the land now in question was covered by rose plants the defendant was allowed to remain in possession first for the purpose of determining the compensation to be paid to him and subsequently as a tenant of that part of the holding. The defendant, who owned a share in the village, brought a suit against the present plaintiff for his share of profits. In that suit a question was raised whether the land in respect ...
Sardar and ors. Vs. Jwala Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All629
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs respondents to recover possession of two cultivatory holdings, namely, the whole of khata No. 32 and a fourth share in khata No. 50. The holding in khata No. 32 has been found to have been the non-occupancy holding of one Patipal Singh. The plaintiffs are the illegitimate sons of Patipal Singh. The defendants are his brothers. It has been found that Patipal Singh was the son of one Debi Singh who was a Kshatriya. Patipal Singh's mother was a Sudra and the question is--what was the status of Patipal Singh? If he was a Sudra, his illegitimate sons, the plaintiffs, would succeed to his holding. If he belonged to some higher caste, the illegitimate sons would have no right of succession. The point does not appear to have been decided by this Court, but it was considered in an elaborate judgment by the Madras High Court. In the case of Brindavana v. Radhamani (1888) I.L.R., 12 Mad. 72 it was hold that the illegitimate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »