Allahabad Court April 1921 Judgments
Sri Newas Vs. Ramdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.65
1 The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:--Sri Niwas of Cawnpore. who alleges that he keeps a shop for the sale of sloth in Kaha Kothi, Cawnpore, instituted a suit against Ram Dao Agarwala, whom he alleges to be another cloth dealer in Dal-Mandi, Cawnpore, on the following allegations. He stated that on the 1st of July 1917 the parties had agreed that Sri Niwas should pay Ram Deo Rs. 250 which Ram Deo was to retain in any circumstances, that on the 15th of February 1918 Sri Niwas should be at liberty to purchase 250 thans of markin of specified quality from Ram Deo at Rs. 12-12 a piece or to sell to Ram Deo 250 piesea at the same price. The contract was a contract which appears to be not unusual in certain towns in India and is known as nazrana sauda. Under it, one party pays to the other party so much money out and out, the receiver of the money is safeguarded if the market fluctuates within certain limits, but if the market fluctuates outside those l...
Tag this Judgment!Guman Singh Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.107
1. The Court below has wholly misconceived its function in this case, and we really must ask Judge to be more painstaking and clear their minds as to their duty before they plunge into some order which they would not otherwise make. The position in this case is governed by the provisions of Section 11 of Act VII of 1837, the Suits Valuation Act, That provides for the case of a plea of under valuation and it lays down, where an objection is taken to the jurisdiction of a Court of first instance in appeal, what the Appellate Court is to do. Sub-section 2 deals with the case of an objection taken in the Court of first instance (which it has in this case), but the Appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in Clause (6) of sub-section 1--both the matters there referred to are when applied to the fasts of this case:1. That the suit was undervalued,2. That under-valuation had prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court shall then dispose of the...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prasad Vs. Ganesh Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All235; (1921)ILR43All581
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is the plaintiff's appeal in the suit which gave rise to First Appeal No. 292 of 1918, just now decided by us. In this appeal the plaintiff contends that the court below has erred in refusing to decree the claim in respect of the four ghats claimed by the plaintiff. As regards those four ghats the defence was that the site of the ghats did not belong to Chedi Tiwari and that the claim was not maintainable in regard to them. It has, however, been proved beyond controversy that Chedi Tiwari owned eight ghats, four of which are now in the possession of the plaintiff. The remaining four ghats are in the possession of the defendants. They were admittedly in the possession of the widow of Chedi Tiwari; and it is also admitted that Sumer, from whom the defendants derived title, was managing those ghats on behalf of the widow of Chedi Tiwari. The main ground upon which the court below has dismissed the claim in regard to the ghats ...
Tag this Judgment!Pancham and ors. Vs. Ansar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All596
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale brought on the basis of a mortgage deed, dated the 2lst of February, 1893, purporting to have been executed by two persons, Zauwar Husain and his mother Musammat Sadar-un-nissa, in favour of the plaintiff appellant, Pancham. According to the document Rs. 4,000 was the loan and it was secured on two classes of property. Firstly, pure zamindari in mauza Deoria and Chak Muhammad Panah, pargana Jhusi of the Allahabad district and 13 items of property which the mortgagors held as mortgagees from other persons. Among these 13 items were two mortgages of property in mauza Chintemanpur and Sidhaura. Out of the sum of Rs. 4,000, Rs. 1,400 purported to have been paid in cash prior to the registration and Rs. 2,600 purported to have been left with the creditor for payment of certain debts due from the mortgagors to other persons. They were as follows:Rs. 1,000 due to Nawaz Khan on account of his decree.Rs. 700...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Suraj Prasad Vs. Pandit Ganesh Ram Jaini and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.94
1. This is the plaintiff's appeal in the suit which gave rise to First Appeal No. 292 of 1918, just now decided by us. In this appeal the plaintiff contends that the Court below has erred in refusing to decree the claim in respect of the four Ghats claimed by the plaintiff. As regards those four Ghats the defense was that the site of the Ghats did not belong to Chedi Tewari and that the claim was not maintainable in regard to them. It has, however, been proved beyond controversy that Chedi Tewari owned eight Ghats, four of which are now in the possession of the plaintiff. The remaining four Ghats are in the possession of the defendants. They were admittedly in the possession of the widow of Chedi Tewari; and it is also admitted that Sumer, from whom the defendants derived title, was managing those Ghats on behalf of the widow of Chedi Tewari. The main ground upon which the Court below has dismissed the claim in regard to the Ghata is that the right claimed in respect of the Ghats is no...
Tag this Judgment!Mewa Ram Vs. Buddhu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All564
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The reference to the Full Bench raises the question of the revisional powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the plaintiff resides and carries on business as a cloth merchant in Etawah while the defendants are commission agents who live and carry on business at Cawnpore. A dispute arose between them in connection with the orders given by the plaintiff for the purchase of cloth. The plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Etawah for the recovery of a certain amount by way of damages. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the Court at Etawah had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, which should have been filed in the Civil Court at Cawnpore. The learned Munsif, instead of trying all the issues raised in the case, proceeded to receive evidence and hear arguments on the question of jurisdiction only. He disposed of the issue of jurisdiction, by his order, dated the 27th of Augus...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Nannua and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.222
1. The facts out of which this appeal arisen as follows: The plaintiffs are the Zemindars of the village and brought this suit against certain occupancy tenants to recover annas ten, which they say was the money value of a payment which the tenants had to make over and above their rent, namely, a head load of bhusa and a bundle of fodder each year, according to a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1871. The suit was resisted on various grounds, among others that no such sustain existed. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. On appeal the Second Additional Judge allowed the appeal He held that these payments in kind were a seas within the meaning of Section 56 of the Land Revenue Act (Local Act III of 1901) and that as they had not been recorded by the Recording Officer at the last Settlement, they could not under the terms of that section be recovered in a Civil or Revenue Court. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiffs some here in second appeal an...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shankar Prasad Vs. Ghulam HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All323; (1921)ILR43All589; 63Ind.Cas.209
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought under the following circumstances. Sarju Prasad, the father of the plaintiff appellant, owned shares in eight villages, which he mortgaged on the 20th of April, 1893, to one Raghubans Shukul. Before this mortgage was executed he had mortgaged four out of the eight villages under three prior mortgages. Those prior mortgages were discharged by sale of two of the villages, namely Khargara and Banwarpara and a four anna share of Dudrajh. The two villages Baharia and Kargara were sold under a private sale to persons who are not parties to the present suit and the proceeds of the sale went to discharge the three prior mortgages. The court below has found in respect of these two villages that they had contributed more than their rateable share of liability for the three prior mortgages.2. Of the mortgaged villages, Pakrizabti, Sukhrauli and two annas of the village Dudrajh were ...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim Zahur Ahmad Vs. Fateh Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.962
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against an order with regard to costs. The order is a somewhat remarkable one, as I shall point out in a moment. I will first deal with the question whether I have any power to interfere in second appeal. Mr. Haider for the respondent says that the case is a trivial one. The amount claimed is undoubtedly small, but the measure of the triviality, from Mr. Haider's point of view, may be estimated from the fact that he has quoted something like four authorities, including Madras, Bombay and a Full Bench of this Court. The section dealing with costs is Section 35. That section vests costs in the discretion of the Court, with full power to determine by whom and to what extent such costs are to be paid. It further provides that when the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing, a clear indication that the Legislature intended that the Court in exercising its discretion should state the principles upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Ram Vs. Khazan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All266; 61Ind.Cas.161
Grimwood Mears, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of acquittal. Although there is no doubt that the High Court has the power to order a re-trial, it is a jurisdiction which should be exercised only in exceptional gases and with caution. It should only be done in cases where the alleged offence is of a serious character. If, however, a Judge comes to the opinion that there has been a miscarriage of justice, where, for instance, the lower Court has misquoted the evidence or where, having evidence before it which prima facie is reasonable and credible, the Judge of that Court gives no grounds whatever for rejecting it. In instances such as that there may well arise an inference either that the Judge has not acted with that propriety and care which is required in the decision of every case, be it civil or be it criminal. In such a case it would appear to be proper, after due examination of the facts, to make an order for re-trial.2. On the evening of the 25th of Se...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »