Allahabad Court May 1921 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Kashmiri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All644
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court by the District Magistrate of Meerut. One Lala Kashmiri Lai, Agarwal Jaini, who has premises in the notified area of Baraut, was fined Rs. 15 by a Magistrate of the first class for failing to comply with a notice issued by the Committee of the notified area as the sanitary authority, requiring him to construct a cesspool; and also Rs. 2 a day from a certain date in respect of future breaches. The latter part of the order, as has often been pointed out, is clearly illegal and must be set aside. Future breaches must be dealt with somewhat differently, as I will point out presently. Magistrates who have to administer this rather troublesome and important Act would do well to study the provisions more closely than they seem to do. However, this part of the case raises no question of importance.2. The main point on which the case has been referred to this Court is a question of importance to the general public and to sanitary authori...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Prasad Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All402; (1921)ILR43All652
Tudball and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Secretary of State that, inasmuch as the owner's claim was not filed before the date fixed in the notice, the Judge should not have allowed larger compensation than that awarded by the Collector. It appears that the date fixed for the filing of the claim was 30th of October, 1917. The claim, however, was not filed till the 10th of November. It had, however, been preceded by an application, dated the 7th of November, 1917. This point, however, was not taken before the District Judge. On the other hand, the only objection raised was that the owner had not given full particulars as required by Section 9 of the Act in his statement of claim and that therefore his objection was not maintainable. Had the point which is now raised before us been raised before, the learned District Judge, the owner might have been in a position t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Parbhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All137; 63Ind.Cas.358
1. The plaintiff is the son of Ajudhia Prasad and seeks to impeach the sale of certain property, effected by the latter in favour of Ram Sahai, Mussamat Mathura, the wife of Ram Sahai, and Nathu Ram, a minor relative of theirs, on the 22nd of April 1913. The sale was effected in lieu of Rs. 1,500, out of which Rs. 238 were to be credited towards certain prior oral debts, Rs. 312 were to be credited towards a prior unregistered bond of the 25th of February 1913 and Rs. 950 were paid before the Sub-Registrar.2. The property sold was the ancestral property of the family, to which the plaintiff and his father, Ajudhia Prasad, belong. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the sale in question was made without any legal necessity, and that it was fictitious and without consideration. The Court of first instance found that out of the sum of Rs. 950 paid before the Sub-Registrar, Rs. 272 had been taken for legal necessity, that the previous debts specified in the sale-deed were fictitious, ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmiri Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All267; 63Ind.Cas.410
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the High Court by the Distrust Magistrate of Meerut. One Lala Kashmiri Lal, Agarwal Jaini, who has premises in the notified area of Baraut, was fined Rs. 15 by a Magistrate of the First class for failing to comply with a notice issued by the Committee of the notified area as the sanitary authority, requiring him to construct a cess-pool; and also Rs. 2 a day from a certain date in respect of future breaches. The latter part of the order, as has often been pointed out, is clearly illegal and mast be set aside. Future breaches must be dealt with somewhat differently, as I will point out presently. Magistrates who have to administer this rather troublesome and important Act would do well to study the provisions more closely than they seem to do. However, this part of the case raises no question of importance.2. The main point on which the case has been referred to this Court is a question of importance to the general public and to sanitary author...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Lachman Prasad Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1921
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.682
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising oat of a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Secretary of State that inasmuch as the owner's claim was not filed before the date fixed in the notice, the Judge should not have allowed larger compensation than that awarded by the Collector. It appears that the date fixed for the filing of the claim was 30th of October 1917. The claim, however, was not filed till the 10th November 1917. It had, however, been preceded by an application dated the 7th November 1917. This point, however, was not taken before the District Judge. On the other hand the only objection raised was that the owner had not given full particulars, as required by Section 9 of the At, in his statement of claim and that, therefore, his objection was not maintainable. Had the point, which is now raised before us, been raised before the learned District Judge, the owner might have been in a position to satisfy the Judge that th...
Tag this Judgment!Narindra Bahadur Singh Vs. the Oudh Commercial Bank Limited
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All478
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The question on this appeal is whether the respondents can enforce a decree made a good while ago in a suit for sale of certain mortgaged properties. The preliminary decree was made on the 15th of June, 1915, on appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner from a decree, dated the 31st of October, 1912, of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow. A few days later, on the 21st of July, 1915, the Court of Wards purported to declare the mortgagor a disqualified proprietor, and assumed superintendence of his estate under the United Provinces Court of Wards Act (Act IV of 1912). On a date which is variously stated, but appears to have been the 21st of February, 1916, the decree was made final. On the 14th of June, 1916, the mortgagor applied for the estate to be released, and on the 12th of September, 1917, the estate was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the direction of the Local, Government, which had been set in motion and in some way dire...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Ram Debi Vs. Gobind Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.646
Stuart, J.1. I do not agree with the view of the learned District Magistrate. The words in Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'the Magistrate by whom the case is heard,' mean 'the Magistrate by whom the case is decided.' I do not take the words to mean that, when the Magistrate who has decided the case has not heard the evidence, he is to be considered a person other than the Magistrate who has heard the case. If the words were interpreted in that way, it would be impossible to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case in which one Magistrate has heard the evidence and another Magistrate has decided the case without hearing the evidence, being under no necessity to bear the evidence, under the provisions of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a Magistrate who has heard and recorded the evidence ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another Magistrate, the latter may act upon the evidence previously recorded...
Tag this Judgment!Madhusudan Das Vs. Birj Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.806
Stuart, J.1. Musammat Inda Kunwar wag plaintiff in a suit against Brij Lal. The Trial Court decreed her suit in part. The High Court in appeal decreed the whole. The Privy Council upheld the decision of the High Court; with a modification in one particular. Under the decree of the High Court Inda Kunwar bad realised the costs from Brij Lal, while in the Privy Council it was directed that the parties should bear their own costs beth to the Privy Council and in the High Court. The result of this was, that Inda Kunwar had to restore to Brij Lal the costs of the High Court which she had recovered from him. Inda Kun war is now dead. She was represented first by her husband, Madhusudan Das, and on his death is now represented by his son, Damodar Das Brij Lal made an application for restitution of the costs which he had paid to Inda Kunwar as the costs incurred in the High Court and which she had obtained from him, An objection was made by Damodar Das that application was time-barred. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Rai Vs. Raghunandan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All353; (1921)ILR43All638; 61Ind.Cas.812
Pramada Charan Banerji, Tudball and Stuart, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgage made on the 20th of December, 1865. It was a usufructuary mortgage and it provided that the usufruct should be appropriated in lieu of interest, and that the principal amount secured, viz., Rs. 375, would be paid on the last day of Jeth, 1280 Fasli (1873).2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on the allegation that the defendant had cut down trees existing on the mortgaged property, that the value of the trees cut down by him exceeded the amount of the mortgage, that the mortgage had thus been discharged and that a further sum was payable to him by the defendant. He accordingly claimed possession of the mortgaged property and the further sum which he alleged to be due to him. In the alternative he prayed that should the court find any sum to be due by him a decree for redemption should be made conditional upon his paying that sum to the defendant.3. The suit was re...
Tag this Judgment!Fazal Ilahi Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All623; 64Ind.Cas.868
Stuart, J.1. The following facts are established on the evidence. Fazal Ilahi is a dealer carrying on business in Allahabad. He deals in fire-works as well as in other articles. Previous to the Shabbarat fastival of the 5th June, 1917, he proceeded to various centres of trade, to purchase fire-works. He went to Calcutta, Bombay, Benares and Cawnpore. He finally purchased four boxes of Chinese crackers in Cawnpore, each of which contained 1,600 packets. He consigned these four boxes at the Collectorganj Parcels Office of the East Indian Railway Company, Cawnpore, to himself at Allahabad, by a parcels forwarding note, dated the 30th of May, 1917, in which the consignment is described as 'four boxes said to contain patakha fire-works' i.e., Chinese crackers He signed the forwarding note giving as his address Chauk, Cawnpore. This was apparently the address at which he was staying while he was in Cawnpore. His permanent address is in Allahabad.2. He booked the consignment at the parcels of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »