Allahabad Court November 1921 Judgments
Sohan Pal, Munna Lal Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All218
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decision of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra. The plaintiff sues the East Indian Railway Company, through its agent, for damages for the loss of a consignment, namely, a package of gunny bags, alleged by him to have been delivered to an authorized agent of the Company at Agra for carriage to Amroha, which certainly never reached its destination. There was some conflict of evidence as to the facts. The Railway Company in the first instance denied that the plaintiff had ever even brought to their office at Agra any such package as that referred to in the plaint. Their main defence, however, was of a technical nature. They called attention to a notification published in the Gazette of India of the day of 5th July, 1902, vide page 504 of Part I, notification No. 231, dated the 3rd day of July, 1902, in which certain rules were notified and the sanction of the Governor General in Council to the same published for gener...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Sohanpal Munnalal Vs. the East Indian Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All9; 65Ind.Cas.109
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decision of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra. The plaintiff sues the East Indian Railway Company, through its agent, for damages for the loss of a consignment, namely, a package of gunny bags alleged by him to have been delivered to an authorised agent of the company at Agra for carriage to Amroha, which certainly never reached its destination. There WAS sons conflict of evidence as to the fact. The Railway Company in the first instance denied that the plaintiff had over even brought to their office at Agra any such package as that referred to in the plaint. Their main defence, however, was of a technical nature. They called attention to a notification published in the Gazette of India of July 5th, 1902, vide page 504 of Part I, Notification No. 231 dated the 3rd of July 1902, in which certain rules were notified and the sanction of the Governor-General in Council to the same published for general information. The...
Tag this Judgment!Bhirug Rai and ors. Vs. Hazari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.922
Stuart, J.1. There are four Pattis in Mahal Nibu Kabirpur, Patti Alok Rai with an area of about 11 bighas, Patti Sital' Rai with an area of 19 bighas, Patti Hiraman Rai with an area of about 11 bighas and Patti Sherakat with an area of 187 bighas odd. The plaintiffs allege that they are the sole owners of Patti Alok Rai and Patti Sital Rai. There seems to be a suggestion that they are not the sole owners, but it may be assumed for the purpose of argument that they are the sole owners. The defendants are the sole owners of Patti Hiraman Rai. Now, 19 bighas 10 biswas and 9 dhurs have been brought under cultivation in Patti Sherakat, Nothing mora is cultivated therein. The plaintiffs have brought 1 bigha 5 biswas and 18 dhurs under cultivation and the defendants have brought the remainder. In Pattis Alok Rai, Sital Rai and Hiraman Rai, the proprietors make separate collections. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for their share of the profits in the cultivated land in Patti Sherakat. T...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Nath Naik Vs. Rajkali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All211
Piggott, J.1. This appeal comes before us under curious and somewhat complicated circumstances, There was a suit instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur upon a hypothecation bond, The plaintiff filed a copy of the bond and pleaded loss of the original. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove by credible evidence the loss of the original, that the suit was not maintainable upon the copy and dismissed it accordingly. There was an appeal to the District Judge of Gorakhpur and this appeal was heard by Mr. R.L. Yorke who then held the office of the District Judge. The effect of his order was to set aside the finding of the trial court, although he did not in terms reverse it. The operative portion of his order was that he remanded the suit to the first court to be tried out on the merits. This order was dated the 4th day of September, 1919, and against it there was an appeal to this Court. In the meantime, however, the trial court was proceeding wit...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhan and ors. Vs. Prag NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All37; (1922)ILR44All216
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application by the appellants, who ask the Court to extend the time for furnishing security and making a deposit for translation and printing and other charges. The rule which prescribes the time within which an appellant should furnish security for the costs of the respondent and deposit the amount required to defray the expenses of translation and printing and other charges was, until Act No. XXVI of 1920, in these terms: 'Where a certificate is granted the applicant shall within six months from the date of the decree complained of, or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate, whichever is the later date, furnish security etc.' By Section 3(1) of Act XXVI of 1920 the words 'six months' have been cut down and in their place the following words are to be read '90 days or such further period not exceeding 60 days as the Court may, upon cause shown, allow.' As the appellant in this case is appealing ag...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram Dhar and ors. Vs. Babu Prag NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.249
1. This is an application by the appellants who ask the Court to extend the time for furnishing security and making a deposit for translation and printing and other charges. The rule which prescribes the time within which an appellant should furnish security for the costs of the respondent and deposit the amount required to defray the expenses of translation and printing and other charges was until Act XXVI of 1970 in these terms;--'Where the certificate is granted, the applicant shall, within six months from the date of the decree complained of, or within six weeks from the date of the grant of the certificate, whichever is the later date, furnish security,' etc. By Section 3(1) of Act XXVI of 1920 the words 'six months' have been out down and in their plane the following words are to be read: 'to days or such farther period, not exceeding 60 days, as the Court may upon cause shown allow.' As the appellant in this case is appealing against a decree of the 2nd of March 1921, he having ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkali and anr. Vs. Gopi Nath Naik
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All35; 66Ind.Cas.317
Piqght, J.1. This appeal comes before us under curious and somewhat complicated circumstances There was a suit Instituted in the Court of the Subordinator Judge of Gorakhpnr upon a hypothecation band. The plaintiff filed a copy of the bond and pleaded loss of the original. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove by credible evidence the loss of the original, that the suit was not maintainable upon the copy and dismissed it accordingly. There was an appeal to the Dietrich Judge of Gorakhpnr and this appeal was heard by Mr. R L. Yorke, who then held the office of the District Judge. The office of his order was to sot aside the finding of the Trial Court, although he did not in terms reverse it. The operative portion of his order was that he remanded the suit to the First Court to be tried out on the merits. This order was dated the 4th of September 1919 and against it there was an appeal to this Court. In the meantime, however, the Trial Court was proceeding with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Muhammad Akbar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1921
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.508
1. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the mortgage made in favour of the defendant by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff in 1894 included certain tanks and a well for the manufacture of indigo. The suit was brought for redemption of the mortgage, and the plaintiff claimed not only the land mortgaged but also the tanks and the well which existed on the land. The mortgagees had no objection to redemption of the land, but they contended that the well and the tanks were not included in the mortgage, that they had been sold previous to the mortgage to the defendants, and that they formed no part of the mortgaged property which could be redeemed.2. The Court of first instance found against the defendants and decreed the whole claim.3. Upon appeal the learned Judge found that the sale-deeds relating to the tanks and the well executed by the mortgagor were genuine sale-deeds, and that the ownership of the mortgagor? had passed to the mortgagees by virtue of those sales....
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi Prasad Vs. Baldeo Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All458; 87Ind.Cas.251
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. We are satisfied that no appeal lies in this case, and we are not disposed to interfere in revision. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Shib Kumar and ors. Vs. Sheo Ghulam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All90; (1922)ILR44All209
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This first appeal from order comes before us under the following circumstances. On objection taken by the judgment-debtors a certain sale_was set aside. The court, however, for reasons given, saw fit to order that the judgment-debtors should not merely bear their own costs of that objection but should also pay the costs of the other side. The judgment-debtors have submitted to the order in so far as it directed them to bear their own costs of the proceeding. They have no quarrel with the order directing the sale to be set aside, which was indeed passed at their instance. They appeal against that part of the order which directed them to pay the costs of the other side. An objection is taken that no appeal lies. In Balkissen Dass v. Luchmeeput Singh (1881) I.L.R. 8 Calc. 91 the principle was broadly laid down that, if an order is itself appealable, an appeal will lie from that part of the order which relates to costs.This decision has been followed in Moshingan v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »