Allahabad Court April 1920 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.
Municipal Board Vs. Pandit Debi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All182(1); 58Ind.Cas.146
Walsh, J.The Municipality in this case seem to me to have misconceived the position. I do not know why the District Magistrate thought it was a case of gross injustice. At the outside there had only been a fine of Rs. 10. It looks more like' a case of misunderstanding. The. Board issued a notice under Section 267 of the Municipalities Act of 1916. Section 267 is a section contained in that part of the Act which empowers the Municipality to take such steps as are in their opinion necessary and of course, reasonable to protect the public against unsanitary conditions. The notice may require an owner to close, remove, alter, repair, cleanse, disinfect or put in good order any latrine, drain, cesspool or other receptacle for carrying away or containing refuse. That section implies that the receptacle, whatever it may be, drain or cesspool is not in good order and not fit for the purpose, that is to say the sanitary purpose, for which it is required. Section 267 does not contemplate or deal...
Bhagwan DIn and anr. Vs. Peare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All190(1); 58Ind.Cas.620
1.We are of opinion that the decision of the Court below is correct. The plaintiffs brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal, for recovery of the value of the branches of certain trees which the plaintiffs had out down but which the defendants had removed and misappropriated. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the trees. The trees appertained to a grove No. 872 which has been found to have been the muafi, of the defendants. They as such muafidars and as grove-holders mortgaged it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree for sale on the basis of the mortgage and in execution of the decree purchased the grove. After this auction purchase he became the sole owner of the grove. The defendants contend that the land was their sir and that they had acquired the rights of ex-proprietary tenants in respect of it and that consequently they were entitled to appropriate the timber of the trees existing on the land. As it is admit...
Sheikh Muhammad Habibullah Vs. Babu Umar Daraz Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All22; 57Ind.Cas.40
1. This is an application for a certificate to be granted Under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enable the plaintiff to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The plaintiff brought a suit against the opposite party, alleging that there was a contrast between them for the supply of certain number of sleepers at a certain rate. He made an advance of Rs. 31,704 11.6 to the defendant. He pleaded that the defendant had failed to deliver the requisite number of sleepers; he, therefore, sought to recover Rs. 8,710 out of the advance made and he also sought to recover Rs. 7,789 15.6 as damages for breach of contract. The Court of first instance came to a finding that 14,288 sleepers were supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff. Allowing for the price thereof at the contract rate, it held that Rs. 4,783 were due to the plaintiff but of the sum advanced to the defendant, With regard to damages it assessed them at 2 annas per sleeper and gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 1,098.14.0 ...
Abdur Rashid Vs. the Sizing Materials Company, Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All142(2); (1920)ILR42All480
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a dealer in chemicals and scientific instruments at Cawnpore. He went to Bombay and ordered goods to be sent to him by the defendant. He alleges that he made an advance of Rs. 300. The invoice of the goods and the Railway receipt were to be sent by the defendant to the Punjab National Bank at Cawnpore and the plaintiff was the pay the Bank and take delivery. These facts are not disputed The defendant sent three invoices to the Bank and duplicates to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took delivery, but he says that all the goods mentioned in the invoices were not in the parcel which contained the goods. The plaintiff thereupon asked the defendant for a refund of the price of such of the articles as he states had not been supplied. There was some correspondence between the parties. The defendant offered to make some payment, but as nothing was done the present suit was instituted for the price of the articles which, according to the p...
Ganga Mal and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All225(1); 58Ind.Cas.87
1. This is a defendants vendees' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff same into Court seeking pre-emption on the basis of an alleged custom under whish he had a right of pre emption. It has been found by the Court below that these has been a partition in the village and that the plaintiff is no longer a Co-sharer of the vendors. The vendees equally are not co-sharers of the vendors. In spite of this fast, the Court below gave to the plaintiff a decree for pre-emption. The lower Appellate Court has found that, according to the custom, a karabatdar karibi, or a near relation, irrespective of the fast that he has no share in the mahal, has a right to pre-empt. It was found that the plaintiff is within seven decrees of one vendor and within eight degrees of another vendor. This fact be has held constitutes a karabatdar karibi that is a near relation, and has given the plaintiff a decree on this basis. It is only necessary to state the actual fasts to see how erroneou...
Mahabir Singh and ors. Vs. Jag Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All193(2); 57Ind.Cas.569
Walsh, J.1. In this case I have to construe two documents of the 12th of January 1887 and the 29th of April 1890. In my opinion when the Courts are asked to decide the construction of one or more documents taken together and to declare the legal result, two essential considerations have to be borne in mind: (1) What is reasonably to be taken to have been the intention of the parties when they made the contract in question, assuming them to be ordinary reasonable business people, one of, whom is willing to give his pro-party as security for an advance and the other of whom is willing to advance money upon reasonable security? Secondly, does the language used by the parties themselves fairly represent or carry out that intention2. On the 12th of January 1887 the mortgagor usufructuarily mortgaged the properly which was carefully described and set out in the deed for a sum of Rs. 188. That document contained the ordinary provision that the mortgagee should pay himself out of the usufruct ...
Bhagwan Das and ors. Vs. Tej Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All27; 56Ind.Cas.148
1. On the 15th of February 1918 the defendant No. 4 sold certain property to defendant No. 1. On the 25th of February 1913 defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were co-sharers, sent a notice to the first defendant claiming a right of pre- emption in the property, whereupon on the 12th of March 1918 defendant No. 1 re-sold the property to defendants Nos. 2 and 3. After that the present plaintiff brought a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption out of which the present appeal from order has arisen. He claimed that he was own brother of the original vendor defendant No. 4; that he bad a right of pre-emption as against the defendant No. 1; that the transfer by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was a fictitious transaction gone through with the object of defeating his right. In the alternative he pleaded that if it was a genuine transaction, he still had a right of pre-emption as he was nearer in blood to the original vendor defendant No. 4 and had a preferential right to the p...
Abdul Rashid Vs. the Sizing Material Co., Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.192
1. The plaintiff in this case is a dealer in chemicals and scientific instruments at Cawnpore. He went to Bombay and ordered goods to be sent to him by the defendant. He alleges that he made an advance of Rs. 300. The invoice of the goods and the railway receipt were to be sent by the defendant to the Punjab National Bank at Cawnpore and the plaintiff was to pay the Bank and. take delivery. These fasts are not disputed. The defendant sent three invoices to the Bank and duplicates to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took delivery, bat he says that all the goods mentioned in the invoices were not in the parcel which contained the goods. The plaintiff thereupon asked the defendant for a refund of the price of such of the articles as he states had not been supplied. There was some correspondence between the parties. The defendant offered to make some payment, but as nothing was done the present suit was instituted for the price of the articles, which according to the plaintiff had not been sup...
Radha Kishen Vs. Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All177(1); 56Ind.Cas.73
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre emption. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the custom did not exist. The lower Appellate Court set aside that decision and held that the custom was established and remanded the suit for decision on the other points. To prove the custom the plaintiff produced a wajib-ul arz for 1272 Fasli. To rebut the evidence contained therein the defendant produced a copy of the halat dehi. The Court of first instance held that the circumstances set forth in the halat dehi showed clearly that no custom of pre emption could possibly have existed in this village. The lower Appellate Court thinks that these circumstances are insufficient to rebut the entry in the wajib ul arz of 1272. Apparently the lower Appellate Court overlooked one of the facts clearly set forth in the halat dehi. That is that in the year 1250 Fasli, i.e.,' at the time of the Mutiny, this village was confiscated and it was held at least for...
Emperor Vs. Bhaggi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All470
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. Bhaggi Lal, the applicant, has been convicted under Section 3 of Act No. Ill of 1867 as amended by Act No. I of 1917 of the Local Council, for keeping a common gaming house. The applicants in the connected case No. 50 have been convicted under Section 4 of the said Act. It has been found that in a house which was owned or kept by Bhaggi Lal a large number of persons (about 65) were discovered by the police gambling on a particular night. The police had obtained a warrant under Section 5 of the Act and the validity of the warrant is not questioned. It is not disputed that gambling was going on in that house and that the persons who were arrested and who have been convicted were gambling there. The main contention is that the...house was not a common gaming house -within the meaning of the Act. That depends upon the further question whether instruments of gaming were found in the house. Under the definition of the expression '' Instruments of gaming' as given...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »