Allahabad Court June 1920 Judgments
Kanhaiya Lal and Lachmi NaraIn Vs. Basdor Mal and Gobind Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All101
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This revision arises out of two cross suits. It appears that on the 2nd of January, 1919, the parties referred their dispute to ah arbitrator, and on the 21st of January, 1919, the arbitrator made a partial award and returned the papers saying that there were not sufficient materials before him to come to a finding on the other issues. The finding on the issue decided by him was adverse to the present applicants. The court sent the papers back to the arbitrator directing him to proceed with the case and decide it on the evidence. The applicants sent a registered notice to the arbitrator prohibiting him from proceeding with the case and requesting him to send the papers to the court. The arbitrator asked for instructions from the court, and the learned Munsif directed him to proceed with the case regardless of the notice. After this an application seems to have been made by the present applicants in the court below withdrawing from the arbitration. That ...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Mal Gobind Prasad and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Lachmi NaraIn and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All361; 59Ind.Cas.667
1. This revision arises out of two cross-suits. It appears that on the 2nd of January 1919 the parties referred their dispute to an arbitrator, and on the 21st of January 1919, the arbitrator made a partial award and returned the papers saying that there were not sufficient materials before him to come to a finding on the other issues. The finding on the issue decided by him was adverse to the present applicants, the Court sent the papers back to the arbitrator directing him to proceed with the case and decide it on the evidence. The applicants sent a registered notice to the arbitrator prohibiting him from proceeding with the case and requesting him to send the papers to the Court. The arbitrator asked for instructions from the Court and the learned Munsif directed him to proceed with the case regardless of the notice. After this, an application seems to have been made by the present applicants in the Court below withdrawing from the arbitration That application was also rejected. The...
Tag this Judgment!Het Singh Vs. Bihari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All358; (1921)ILR43All95
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that on the 17th of November, 1360, one Pirthi Singh made a mortgage of the property in dispute in this case in favour of one Nand Kishore and Gulab Singh. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee was to remain in possession and was to pay Rs. 40 a year to the mortgagor and appropriate the balance of the profits in lieu of interest. The mortgage was not to be redeemed within 25 years. Subsequent to this Pirthi Singh died and two of his sons and his widow, acting, as guardian of his third minor son, executed a fresh mortgage deed of the whole property in favour of defendants 1 to 7, under which the previous mortgage deed was redeemed and it was provided that instead of Rs. 40 a year only Rs. 25 should be paid to the mortgagor and the balance of the profits was to be appropriated by the mortgagee. On the 29th of March, 1886, Ishri, the minor son, having attained majority, t...
Tag this Judgment!Hait Singh Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.92
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. It appears that on the 17th of November 1860 one Pirthi Singh made a mortgage of the property in dispute in this case in favour of one Nand Kishore and Gulab Singh. The mortgage deed provided that the mortgagee was to remain in possession and was to pay Rs. 40 a year to the mortgagor and appropriate the balance of the profits in lieu of interest. The mortgage was not to be redeemed within 25 years. Subsequent to this, Pirthi Singh died and two of his sons and his widow, acting as guardian of his third minor son, executed a fresh mortgage deed of the whole property in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 7, under which the previous mortgage-deed was redeemed and it was provided that, instead of Rs. 40 a year, only Rs. 25 should be paid to the mortgagor and the balance of the profits was to be appropriated by the mortgagee. On the 29th of March 1886 Ishri, the minor son having attained majority, transferred to the present pl...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Singh Vs. Chhail Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All279(2); 59Ind.Cas.688
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for profits against a lambardar, under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act. It appears that the defendant was in possession of some of the khudkasht land in this village and a number of suits for profits were brought against him. The profits of these khudkasht lands were calculated at Rs. 241-7-6 per year. On the 10th of August 1914 the defendant purported to make a usufructuary mortgage of the khudkasht lands in favour of a third party for at sum of Rs. 1,000. On the same date he executed a kabuliyat in favour of the mortgagee agreeing to pay Rs. 100 a year as rent for the ex-proprietary tenancy to which he became entitled in lieu of interests. The Court of first instance, in calculating the profits for the years in dispute, took Rs. 100, the agreed amount, as the profits for these lands. On appeal the District Judge has varied the decree of the Court of first instance and has taken the profits at the former figure, viz., Rs. 241-7...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chatur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All92
Tudball, J.1. The five applicants, Chatur Singh, Tula Ram, Johri, Poltu and Sri Chand have been convicted each of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51 each, or in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. These five persons were called as witnesses in a certain case. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, the question in that case was whether one Lallu Singh had been to a certain house. The question was relevant to the case and in order to prove that he had not been to that house these five persons were called to prove that he could not have gone there because he had been outcasted by reason of what is known as a dharecha marriage with his uncle's wife. In that case Lallu Singh was a witness for the prosecution, and the present five applicants were witnesses for the defence and apparently they were called to disprove the statement of Lallu Singh in order that the accused might be acquitted. In the result ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatur Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All362; 58Ind.Cas.825
1. The five applicants, Chatur Singh, Tula Ram, John, Pothi and Sri Chand have been convicted each of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 51 each or, in default, to undergo 'one month's rigorous imprisonment. These five persons were sailed as witnesses in a certain case As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, the question in that case was whether one Lallu Singh had been to a certain house. The question was relevant to the case and, in order to prove that he had not been to that house, these five persons were called to prove that he could not have gone there because he had been outcaste by reason of what is known as a dhariche marriage, with his uncle's wife. In that case Lallu Singh was a witness for the prosecution and the present five applicants were witnesses for the defense and, apparently, they were called to disprove the statement of Lallu Singh in order that the accused might be acquitted. In the result, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Kharidar Kapra Company, Limited Vs. Daya Kishan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All306; (1921)ILR43All116
Piggott and Ryves, JJ.1. This suit was brought by the Kharidar Kapra 1Company, a limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business at Cawnpore as importers of and dealers in cloth. They sued through their managing director Raghunandan Lai. Their cause of action was stated to arise out of the following facts. There had been in Cawnpore one Girdhari Lal, a broker and also a dealer in cloth on his own account. This Girdhari Lal undoubtedly had for a number of years relations of various kinds with the plaintiff company. He earned brokerage from them in connection with their dealings, and we see no reason to doubt that, at times at any rate, he entered into special contracts with them, as for instance by offering to bear some specified share in the expenses of a particular deal in cloth and to share in the resultant profit or loss in the same proportion. These of course were contracts of partnership, pure and simple. In other cases apparently, Girdhar...
Tag this Judgment!Kharidar Kapra Company Vs. Daya Kishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.765
1. This suit was brought by the Kharidar Kapra Company, a limited liability company registered under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business at Cawnpore as importers of, and dealers iv, cloth. They sued through their managing director Raghunandan Lal. Their cause of action was stated to arise out of the following facts. There had been in Cawnpore one Girdhari Lal, a broker, and also a dealer in cloth on his own account. This Girdhari Lal undoubtedly had for a number of years relations of various kinds with the plaintiff company. He earned brokerage from them in connection with their dealings and we see no reason to doubt that, at times at any rate, he entered into special contracts with them, as, for instance, by offering to bear some specified share in the expenses of a particular deal in cloth and to share in the resultant profit or loss in the same proportion. These, of course, were contracts of partnership pure and simple. In other cases, apparently, Girdhari Lal would take ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Mohan Pande and ors. Vs. Kaliprasad Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All290; 59Ind.Cas.937
1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. A suit for pre-emption was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Bansi on the allegations that, (1) the custom of pre-emption prevailed in the village, and (2) the consideration had been exaggerated. The defence was that there was no such custom and that the consideration was as given in the sale-deed. The learned Munsif found for the plaintiff and gave him a decree on the basis that the consideration for sale was Rs. 1,181-4-0. From this judgment and decree there were two appeals, one by the vendee in which be contested the issue of custom and the other, a cross appeal by the plaintiff as to the real amount of consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the vendee's appeal but held that the consideration which passed was really Rs. 800. The defendant appealed to this Court, and as two decrees had been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge he had to file two appeals in this Court. Appeal No. 1102 of 1917 was from th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »