Allahabad Court July 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.
Bhola Nath, Debi Das Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All56
Ryves, J.1. This suit was brought by the consignee of two bales of yarn despatched from Bombay to a station of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway to recover the value of one of the bales which was lost in transit. The goods were consigned under Risk Note Form B, according to which the consignor held the railway free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of, or damage to, the said consignment from any cause whatever, except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages forming part of a consignment, due either to the wilful neglect of the railway administration or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants. There was a proviso to the effect that 'wilful neglect' be not held to include 'fire, robbery from a running train or any other unforeseen event or accident.' It has been found that the bale was stolen during transit. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has given the plaintiff a decree on the ground that ...
Emperor Vs. Dulla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All58; 74Ind.Cas.1054
Ryves, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Farrukhabad. It appears that three persons were acquitted by an Honorary Magistrate under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code because on the day fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant did not appear. The complainant filed another complaint charging the same accused with having committed the same offence on the same allegations of fact, before the same Magistrate. He referred the point as to whether having regard to Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code he could try the case again and, having been directed to do so by the Sub-Divisional Officer, issued proceedings against the accused. The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court recommending that further proceedings be quashed on the ground that under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused persons cannot be again tried. This was the view taken by this Court in Empress v. Bhawani Prasad Weekly Notes, 1885 p....
Sadiq Ali Vs. Anwar Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All66
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. On the 27th of October, 1919, Sadiq Ali filed three second appeals in this Court making Abdul Baqi Khan and Anwar Ali respondents. Abdul Baqi Khan died on the 30th of June, 1920. When the Court reopened on January 3rd, 1921, Sadiq Ali had that day, and that day Only, upon which to take steps to get the heirs of Abdul Baqi Khan put on the record. Nothing was done on that day, and thereupon the appeals auxomatically abated. On January 4th, 1921, an application was made that the Court should set aside the abatement. That matter was heard by Mr. Justice Tudball, who subsequently declined to Bet aside the order, and the parties come up here in appeal.2. The first point which has been taken by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad is that no appeal lies from the decision of Mr. Justice Tudball, and we propose to consider this matter, just because, if Mr. Iqbal Ahmad is right, we cannot inquire into the merits of the case and see if Sadiq Ali in his application to Mr. Justice...
Chhote Lal Vs. Chandra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All59
Kanhaiya Lal and Sulaiman, JJ.1. These appeals arise out of a suit by the plaintiff appellant for the possession of a certain house and for mesne profits. The house originally belonged to a person named Sheola Mal and was his self-acquired property. Sheola Mal had a son Mathra Das and a daughter, who was the mother of Raja Ram and Ram Babu. The allegation of the plaintiff was that Mathra Das had been adopted by Kunj Lal, the brother of Sheola Mal, that on the 13th of May, 1906, Sheola Mal made a gift of the said house in favour of Raja Ram and Ram Babu; that Ram Babu predeceased Raja Ram and left no issue, and that the said house was sold in execution of a decree obtained by Baij Nath against Kaja Ram and purchased by the plaintiff on the 18th of September, 1917.2. The defendants on the other hand denied that Mathra Das had been adopted by Kunj Lal and asserted that if such adoption took place, it was invalid because no ceremony of adoption was performed. It was further asserted that M...
Dr. Sadiq Ali Vs. Anwar Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All44; 70Ind.Cas.805
1. On the 27th of October 1919 Sadiq Ali filed three Second appeals in this Court making Abdul Baqi Elian and Anwar Ali respondents. Abdul Baqi Khan died on the 30th of June 1920--when the Court re-opened on January 3rd, 1921 Sadiq Ali had that day, and that day only, upon which to take steps to get the heirs of Abdul Baqi Khan put on the record. Nothing was done on that day and thereupon the appeal automatically abated. On January 4th, 1921, an application was made that the Court should set aside, the abatement. That matter was heard by Mr. Jutice Tudball, who subsequently declined to set aside the order; and the parties come up herein appeal.2. The first point which has been taken up by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad is that no appeal lies from the decision of Mr. Justice Tudball, and we propose to consider this matter first, because, if Mr. Iqbal Ahmad is right we cannot enquire into the merits of the case and see if Sadiq Ali in his application to Mr. Justice Tudball alleged and proved that he wa...
The Great Indian Peninsular Railway Company Vs. Firm Bhola Nath-debi D ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.854
Ryves, J.1. This suit was brought by the consignee of two bales of yarn, despatched from Bombay to a station on the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, to recover the value of one of the bales which was lost in transit. The goods were consigned under Risk-Note, Form B, according to which the consignor held the Railway free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of, or damage to, the said consignment due either to the wilful neglect of the Railway Administration or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants. There was a proviso to the effect that 'wilful neglect' be not held to include fire, robbery from a running train or any other unforeseen event of accident.' It has been found that the bale was stolen during transit. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has given the plaintiff a decree on the ground that the Railway Administration were liable. It seems to me that the learned Judge has misdirected himself. He says 'in short what the Risk-...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Raghubir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All17; 70Ind.Cas.833
Walsh, J.1. I do not agree with the view of the lower Courts in this appeal that the ownership of the patent was a matter exclusively to be dealt with by the Court appointed under the Patent Act. The ownership in this patent arises in a dispute in the winding-up of the partnership. The provisions of the Patent Act are a guide, both to the Special Court, and to all Courts where a controversy arises in regard to the ownership of a patent, the beneficial interest of which belongs to one person although the registered name is that of another. It might be, independently of anything appearing in this case, that the owner of a patent without transferring his interest in it, agreed with a partner to share the; expenses and the profits of running it together in partnership, and it might, as a master of convenience in the course of business result in the, name of the patentee being either the two of them or even the one who had not invented it. In my opinion, in such circumstances, the Court whi...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Chandra Bhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All176; 80Ind.Cas.1041
1. These appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for the possession of a certain house and for mesne profits. The house originally belonged to a person named Sheola Mal and was his self-acquired property. Sheola Mal had a son Mathra Das and a daughter, who was the mother of Raja Ram and Ram Babu. The allegations of the plaintiff were that Mathra Das had been adopted by Kunj Lal, the brother of Sheola Mal, that on the 13th May 1906 Sheola Mal made a gift of the said house in favour of Raja Ram and Ram Babu; that Ram Bubu predeceased Raja Ram and left no issue, and that the said house was sold in execution of a decree obtained by Baij Nath against Raja Ram and purchased by the plaintiff on the 18th September 1917.2. The defendants on the other hand denied that Mathra Das had been adopted by Kunj Lal and asserted that if such adoption took place, it was invalid because no ceremony of adoption was performed. It was further asserted that Mathra Das and Sheola Mal live...
Musammat Masita Bibi Vs. Khuda Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All65; 79Ind.Cas.246
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of some land by demolition of certain constructions made by the defendant. The defendant had denied the plaintiff's title and the main issues raised in the case were questions of fact. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's claim. So far as the decision on the merits is concerned, it is not challenged in second appeal before me and ground No. 3, taken in respect to the vague decision to which the finding has been arrived at, has not been pressed. The only point that has been strongly contended before me was that, in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties on the 14th of September, 1920, under which they had agreed to abide by the statement of one Muhammad Hadi Hasan, the lower Appellate Court was not justified in going behind that agreement and disposing of the appeal on the merits.2. It appears that, on the 14th of September 1920, when the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court ...
Har Dayal Singh Vs. Gar Dayal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923All181; 79Ind.Cas.542
Stuart, J.1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen are these. Dammer Singh planted certain trees upon his occupancy holding forty years before the date of the suit with the consent of the zemindars. He mortgaged the trees to Hardial Singh in 1908. Hardial Singh obtained a decree on his mortgage in 1918. In 1919 Dammer Singh was ejected. When Hardial Singh endeavoured to execute his decree by bringing the trees to sale the zemindars instituted the suit for a declaration that the trees could not be brought to sale. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. A copy of the wajib-ul-arz of the village was put in evidence. This wajib-ul-arz declared what the custom was in the village with regard to trees that -were not a portion of groves. It declared that such trees as are in possession of the persons who have planted them on the fields or on the ridges may be out and sold by the tenants of the fields. I understand the Courts, below to have agreed that the wajib...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »