Allahabad Court January 1923 Judgments
Sheo Prasad Vs. Kamta Prasad and Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All361
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this suit is an occupancy tenant and he brought a claim against his landlord to recover a certain sum of money by way of damages, alleging that the landlord had without any right deprived him, the plaintiff, of the fruits of certain trees which stand upon his occupancy holding.2. The first court dismissed the claim but the lower appellate court has decreed it in part. It has given the plaintiff relief with respect to the compensation demanded on account of the taking away of mango fruits but has dismissed the claim as regards the fruits of the two other trees, namely, a jamun and a lasora tree.3. The defendant zamindar has appealed and the plaintiff has filed cross-objections. The case came up before a Judge of this Court who has referred it for decision to a Bench, being of opinion that a question of general importa.nce is raised.4. It seems to us that the law on the subject presents no difficulty whatever. There can be no doubt that the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Mohan and ors. Vs. M.C. White and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All466; (1923)ILR45All364; 73Ind.Cas.413
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is an appeal by a body of creditors against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad making a personal allowance to the insolvent out of his property for the support of himself and his family, under Section 66, Sub-section 2, of the Provincial Insolvency Act No. V of 1920. One difficulty in delivering a clear judgment in a case of this kind is that the enumeration of the appropriate sections has been altered from time to time by various Amending Acts. We will confine our observations to the sections of the present Act. Leave was required under the Act, as the counsel for the insolvent rightly objected, and was not applied for until a late stage of the proceedings, and the matter of leave was referred to the court hearing the appeal. As the case has been argued as one of principle, and appears to us to require careful consideration in view of certain existing decisions, we have granted the necessary leave, it being clearly a case in which it would have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Badan Singh Vs. Janki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All363; 71Ind.Cas.692
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur recommending the cancellation of an order of compensation passed under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a first class Magistrate of Ghazipur. The order was passed in proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 250, by its terms, applies only to a case where a person is accused before a Magistrate of an offence and, not to proceedings the object of which is to require him to give security to keep the peace. This has been held in the cases referred to by the learned Sessions Judge. I, therefore, accept the reference and set aside the order of compensation. The amount, if paid, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Kampta Prasad Vs. Sheo Prasad and Ram Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All406; 71Ind.Cas.971
1. The plaintiff in this suit is an occupancy tenant and he brought a claim against his landlord to recover a certain sum of money by way of damages alleging that the landlord had without any right deprived him, the plaintiff, of the fruits of certain trees which stand upon his occupancy holding.2. The first Court dismissed the claim, but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it in part. It has given the plaintiff relief with respect to the compensation demanded on account of the taking away of mango fruits but has dismissed the claim as regards the fruits of the two other trees, namely, a jamun and a lasora tree.3. The defendant zemindar has appealed and the plaintiff has filed cross-objections. The case came up before a Judge, of this Court who has referred it for decision to a Bench, being of opinion that a question of general importance is raised.4. It seems to us that the law on the subject presents no difficulty whatever. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff (the tenant) has ...
Tag this Judgment!Khairati Lal Vs. Kesho Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All359
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is raised to the entertainment of this appeal, based upon the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure; in other words, it is argued that the suit out of which the appeal has arisen was a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and as the subject-matter of the suit was under Rs. 500, therefore no second appeal lies.2. The facts are as follows:The plaintiff in the suit was one Khairati Lal. This man had a decree against one Abdul Aziz which he was executing by sale of certain immovable property supposed to belong to Abdul Aziz.3. At the time when these execution proceedings were pending, it seems that the other party to this suit, namely, Lala Kesho Satan, held two decrees against the same judgment-debtor Abdul Aziz. Kesho had applied in the execution proceedings taken by Khairati Lal, for rateable distribution of assets.4. When the time came for sale of the property, Khairati, Lal, the decree-holder, a...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Lal Vs. Firm Gulab Rai-naraIn Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All345; 71Ind.Cas.610
Daniels, J.1. The question in dispute in this appeal is as to the liability of the appellant, Nand Lal, on a hundi. The appellant was the fourth defendant in the suit. The hundi was drawn by the defendant's first party, the firm of Murli Dhar Bakhshi Ram, through their agents, the second and third defendants, in favour of the plaintiff firm, Ghulab Rai-Narain Das, for Rs. 400. The plaintiffs sent it to Nand Lal with instructions to realise the amount and place it to the plaintiff's credit in the account between him and the plaintiffs. Nand Lai sent it to the defendants fifth party, the firm of Ram Prasad-Ram Gopal, his commission agents, to realise it from the drawees, the sixth party. The defendants fifth party showed it to the drawees on 22nd June 1917. The drawees kept it for seven days and then wrote 'seen' on it and returned it to the defendants fifth party. Possibly owing to delays in the post it did not reach Nand Lal till 5th July (this date is given in the Munsif's judgment wh...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahid Khan Vs. Abdullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.661
Ryves, J.1. Abdul Wahid Khan was involved in an enquiry under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of a Magistrate, Chaudhri Girwar Singh. Owing to that Magistrate going on short leave the case was transferred to another Magistrate who took it up on the 10th November 1922. On the 13th November Abdul Wahid Khan applied to the District Magistrate to transfer the case to some other Magistrate or back again to the original Magistrate as he was returning very shortly, for reasons stated in the affidavit attached to the petition. On the same date the District Magistrate passed the order:The case is sent back to Chaudhri Girwar Singh for trial.2. It appears that on the 15th November the Magistrate concerned sent to the District Magistrate his explanation of the affidavit filed by Abdul Wahid Khan, On the 17th November the District Magistrate after asking petitioner why he should not be prosecuted for making a false statement in an affidavit passed the following order:Abdul ...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj and anr. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All304; 71Ind.Cas.1028
1. Second Appeals Nos. 1337, 1356 and 1357 are connected and have been argued together. They arise out of two suits brought, respectively, by Musammat Sunder Kunwar and one Hansraj for a declaration that a certain sale did not pass the right to receive a 10 per cent, malikana allowance in respect of a Zemindari share and did not convey any interest in certain sir land. The state of the proprietary interest in this village is peculiar and is set out in the judgment of the learned District Judge. There are two bodies interested in it who are known as the muafidars and the Zemindars. In the case of this village the persons who correspond to the proprietors in the ordinary sense, who collect the rents from the tenants, let out the land and pay the Government revenue, are the muafidars. The settlement also has been made with them. The only rights which the so-called Zemindars have, is a right to receive from the muafidars a cash payment of 10 per cent, of the total rental and to hold sir la...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj and anr. Vs. Gobind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.571
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this Court, sued Gobind Ram and his minor sons upon two mortgages of the 9th of September 1911 and the 25th of June 1922. The question in issue in the Court below and again in this Court was whether the joint ancestral property in the hands of Gobind Ham can be made liable for the whole, or for any part of the consideration under these two deeds. The essential circumstances are as follows: On the 20th of July 1911 Go kind Ram had obtained a pre-emption decree entitling him to acquire certain property in a village called Loharra, on condition of his depositing a sum of Rs. 1,072, within a prescribed time. He borrowed this amount from the plaintiffs under the deed of September the 9th, 1911, by hypothecating under the said deed not only the share in village Loharra which he proposed to acquire, but also certain ancestral family property in his hands. He did not confine himself to raising the money necessary to acquire the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Cawnpore Cotton Mills Co. Ld. Vs. Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All301; (1923)ILR45All353
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. This case had been before a Bench of this Court previously and the facts are all set out in an order of the 21st of March last. By the order which was passed on that date it was directed that certain further evidence should be produced before this Court in order to enable us to deal with the particular question which was raised. Both parties have filed documentary evidence and the case has now boon argued before us.2. It is not necessary to re-state the facts, which are all set out in the order of the Bench of the 21st of March last. The suit was a suit brought by the Cawnpore Cotton Mills. Limited, against the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. That suit bits failed in both the courts below on the ground that no notice as required by Section 77 of the Railways Act (Act No. IX of 1890) was served upon the defendant company, and the only question which, is now before us is whether both the courts below wore right in so holding or whether from the evidence before ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »