Allahabad Court March 1922 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.
Mul Chand and anr. Vs. Pachkauri Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All554
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a hundi drawn by Bihari Lal Balmakund on the firm of Bihari Lal Balmakund in favour of Mul Chand, the plaintiffs agreeing to pay him Rs. 2,000 within ninety days from the 30th of April, 1918, with interest at 12 per cent. per annum. The plaintiffs gave the defendants credit for certain items and sued for Rs. 1,906, the balance with interest.2. The main defence of the contesting defendants was the denial of the execution of the hundi. Alternatively, it was claimed that execution by one member of the firm would not bind the other members, as the money was not required for or used in the business of the firm.3. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal a further point was taken, namely, that as the hundi had not been presented, the provisions of Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act barred the suit. The other pleas raised in the trial court were reiterated. On this new point the court below held that this particular hundi wa...
Pachkauri Lal and anr. Vs. Mulchand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All279; 66Ind.Cas.503
1. This appeal arises out of a hundi drawn by Behari Lal Balmakund on the firm of Behari Lal-Baltnakand in favour of Mul Chand, the plaintiffs agreeing to pay him Rs. 2,000 within ninety days from the 30th of April 1918 with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiffs gave the defendants a red it for certain items and sued for Rs. 1,906, the balance with interest.2. The main defense of the contesting defendants was the denial of the execution of the hundi; alternatively, it was claimed that execution by one member of the firm would not bind the other members as the money was not required for or used in the business of the firm.3. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, a further point was taken, namely, that as the hundi had not been presented tie provisions of Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act barred the suit. The other pleas raised in the Trial Court were reiterated. On this new point the Court below held that this particular hundi was really a promissory note a...
Emperor Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All550; 66Ind.Cas.423
Lindsay, J.1. For the reasons stated in the referring order of the Sessions Judge, I set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, Durga Prasad, and direct that he be re-tried before a competent Magistrate along with the two other accused, namely, Sahai and Madho, in whose case a re-trial has been directed by the learned Sessions Judge....
Lalta Prasad Vs. Sri Ganeshji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All117; (1922)ILR44All579; 1Ind.Cas.555
Walsh and Stuart, JJ.1. The point raised by this appeal is covered by authority. The question is, what is meant by the expression 'mesne profits' when the decree is silent as to interest. Section 2, Clause (12), of the Code of Civil Procedure defines mesne profits as follows: 'those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits'. If there had been any doubt as to the meaning of those words, it has been set at rest, and ought no longer to be a matter of controversy in India, by the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Grish Chunder Lahiri v. Shoshi Shikhareswar Roy (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 951 (967), where the Privy Council pointed out, in construing Section 211 of the old Code, which in this respect does not differ from the section quoted above of the present Code, that 'its obvious effect was to provide that a simple decree for mesne profits shoul...
Patrick Norman Dwter Vs. Harriet Mary Cecilia Dwyer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All243; 66Ind.Cas.494
1. This is a hopeless appeal. We can only hope that the parties, in spite of the miserable charges that they have made against one another, will take the learned Judges' advice. There is one respect in which the learned Judge, it is perhaps well to mention, has departed from the ordinary rule. There is no cross-objection and, therefore, we cannot alter his order, but he should have realised that the regular rule, to which there is practically no exception, is, that even although a wife's detence fails, or her counter-charges break down, or she has been proved guilty of adultery, the husband has to pay her costs. This was not acase in which the Judge should have ordered each party to pay their own costs. The policy of the Matrimonial Law in England and it is the same among the Christians in India, has always demanded that the husband shall be responsible for his wife's costs. Indeed, the usual practice in every husband's petition is to require him to deposit a sum for the wife's costs b...
Dalli Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All233; 66Ind.Cas.427
1. Dalli has appealed from his sentence of death for the murder of his mistress. The learned Sessions Judge accepted his plea of 'guilty' and convicted him upon it. No evidence at all was taken in the Court of Session. In a sass of murder it has long been the practice of this Court not to accept the plea of guilty. After all murder is a mixed question of fast and law, and, unless the Court is perfectly aatis6ed that the accused knew exactly what was necessarily implied by his plea of guilty, the case should be tried, and in dealing with people of the status of Dilli, this, of course, san never be the case. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the learned Sessions Judge to refuse to accept the plea of 'guilty' and to retry the case....
Sundar Lal Vs. Shib Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All362; 66Ind.Cas.704
1. In this case the suit was by the respondent, mortgagor, to redeem a mortgage of the 1st of September 1876, This mortgage was for Rs. 200. He claimed redemption on payment of Rs. 100 only on the ground that the balance of Rs. 100 which was payable with interest at 18 percent, per annum had become time-barred because of a lapse of time. The mortgagee contended that the amount actually due to him was Rs. 678.80 the principal and interest under the terms of the mortgage and a further sum of Rs. 50 which be had spent out of his own pocket in keeping the mortgaged property in repairs. The Munsif agreed with the contention of the defendant-mortgagee and allowed the amount of mortgage-money claimed by him plus Rs. 20 on account of repairs. The plaintiff went up CO appeal and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has, purporting to follow the case of Phul Kuar v. Murli Dhar 2 A. 527, 1 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 905, upheld the defendant's contention in part and allowed the mortgagee the pri...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All291; 69Ind.Cas.765
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Ganga Sahai, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on foot of a mortgage, dated the 2nd November 19i5, for the recovery of Rs. 6,153-9-0, the mortgage-money due, by sale of the hypothecated property. The mortgage in suit was admittedly given by Ramman Singh, The claim was brought against Ramman Singh and his son Ranjit Singh, and his subsequent transferee Lala Makut Lal. The principal contesting defendant in the case was the son of the executant of the deed, namely, Ranjit Singh. He pleaded that his father was of an immoral character and reckless and extravagant in his expenditure and had given the bond in suit for a consideration which was not binding on the family nor effective and operative against the family property. For the plaintiff mortgages the rejoinder was that the whole consideration of the deed in suit was advanced for legal necessity. Both parties gave evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage in suit was given for...
Gajadhar Vs. Megha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All337; (1922)ILR44All546; 77Ind.Cas.502
Walsh and Stuart, JJ.1. The learned Counsel for the respondents takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies under the provisions of Section 18 of Act XIX of 1841, This objection must prevail. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
NaraIn Rao Kalia and ors. Vs. Musammat Manni Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All230; 66Ind.Cas.394
1. This is a defendants appeal arising oat of a suit for a declaration of title as mortgagor by the plaintiffs. The defendants who are now recorded as Zemindars, sued to eject the plaintiff, Lalji Singh, from a certain holding under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff, Lalji Singh, pleaded in defence that he was the real owner of the said holding, that the possession of the defendants was merely that of mortgagees on his behalf, and that they had, therefore, no right to bring a suit for his eject-ment. On the 3rd of February 1916, the Revenue Court referred him to the Civil Court to have his title declared, and hares he brought the present suit. The plaintiff's allegation was that the defendants were purchasers of mortgagee rights and that they had acknowledged the mortgage in the beginning of the Settlement of 1882. The defendants pleaded in reply that the suit was barred by six years' rule of limitation, that the mortgage was made by the plaintiff's predecessor-in title on t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »