Allahabad Court February 1923 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.
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Firm Jiwan and Abdulla ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All426; 71Ind.Cas.609
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision of a judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Saharanpur awarding the plaintiff firm damages against the Secretary of State as proprietor of the Oudh and Rohilkhand. Railway.2. The facts found by the Court below are as follows: On the 23rd June 1920, the plaintiff firm made over to the Railway 58 parcels containing mangoes. The goods were consigned to Lahore. At the time of sending the goods Lie plaintiffs executed a Risk-Note in Form B.3. The goods were delayed in transit and did not reach Lahore till the 4th July and by that time Lie trait had become rotten. Delivery was offered to the consignee on 5th July but was refused by him, and, under the orders of the Station Superintendent, the goods were then destroyed.4. The Judge finds that the delay in the transit of the goads and the resulting deterioration of the fruit was one to gross negligence on the part of the Railway's servants.5. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff firm...
Muhammad Umar Khan Vs. Amtul Rahim Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All311; 71Ind.Cas.965
1. These appeals arise out of three connected suits filed by the plaintiff-appellant, Muhammad Umar Khan, for his share as heir to the extent of one-third of Ahmad AH Khan deceased. In two of the suits he claims partition by metes and bounds of different properties together with certain rents alleged to have been wrongly realised by the defendants. In the third suit he claims joint possession of the fractional share to which he is entitled. The suits were disposed of by the Court below in one judgment and were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by Order II, Rule 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of a suit previously filed by the plaintiff against Musammat Amtul Rahim and Musammat Mariam Bibi, defendants in these suits, and one Musammat Ruqayya Begam who is not a party to this litigation. The learned Munsif held that Order II, Rule 2, had no application to the facts of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge in a very brief judgment overruled him and dismissed the s...
Amjad Ali Khan Vs. Sheikh Mohammad Usman and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All471; 71Ind.Cas.963
Lindsay, J.1. This is an execution second appeal. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. The point for decision is, whether or not the lower Appellate Court was right in treating a certain application as being an application for execution which was barred by time.2. The facts which it is necessary to set out in order to dispose of this appeal may be summarised as follows:The date of the original Court's decree was the 29th of November 1913. This decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on the 17th of February 1914 and by the High Court on the 7th of December 1915. The decree was for specific performance, the judgment-debtor being ordered to restore to its original condition a certain water course.3. The first application was made on the 19th of July 1916. The present application was made on the 9th of July 1921.4. When the first application for execution was made in July 1916 a petition was made in the lower Court asking for the appointment of an Amin. An Amin was appointed and ...
Lala Ram Dass Vs. Inayat Ullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.1027
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who sought to recover a sum of money from the defendants, one item of which was Rs. 660. This was claimed on a memorandum of account signed by one of the defendants on the 27th November 1917 admitting that a sum of Rs. 660 was due by him to the plaintiff. This account, it, appears, started in 1915. The suit was brought on the 14th April 1920, so that unless the memorandum of the 27th November 1917 was legally admissible as an acknowledgment within Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, so much, of the claim as referred to this, account would be time-barred. Both the lower Courts have held that this document came within the definition of an acknowledgment of a debt in Article I of the First Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act and held that, inasmuch as it did not bear a one-anna stamp, under Section 35 of that Act it was inadmissible. Both Courts, therefore, dismissed the suit so far as this claim was concerned. On appeal before us it has been urged,...
Munni Babu and anr. Vs. Koer Kamta Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All321; 72Ind.Cas.86
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application for revision of a judgment of the Small Cause Court at Agra.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering a sum of Rs. 200 which he had paid as earnest-money in the following circumstances:On the nth of October 1915 the plaintiff had entered into a contract with the father of the defendants for the sale of certain property. Afterwards, the plaintiff sued, the father of the defendants for specific performance of the contract. That suit was dismissed finally by a judgment of this Court. The plaintiff now brings the present suit for recovery of the earnest-money paid. The father having died in the meantime the suit was brought against the sons.3. Two pleas were raised in the Court below in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim. It was argued in the first place that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower Court overruled this plea and, in my opinion, rightly.4. The earn...
Bindeshri Prasad Tiwari Vs. Badal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All394; (1923)ILR45All369
Lindsay, Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether an auction-purchaser under a decree which has been, after confirmation of the sale, set aside as the result of a separate suit, can recover his purchase-money from the decree-holder. If the answer is in the affirmative, as we think it must be, there is a subsidiary question as to whether his remedy is by application under Section 47 or 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by a separate suit.2. The appellant Bindeshri Prasad is the auction-purchaser. The decree under which the sale was held was a, decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage executed in favour of the respondents by one Debi Saran Dhar. Debi Saran Dhaj formed a. joint family with his minor grandson Ram Bujharat. The respondents brought a suit for sale on the basis of their mortgage in the year 1917 impleading Debi Saran Dhar and Ram Bujharat. In this suit they obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the 1st of June, 1917. The decr...
Keshab Deo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All320; 81Ind.Cas.715
Lindsay, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the Etah District has reported this case recommending that the trial under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be set aside and that a fresh trial be ordered in some other district either Budaun or Aligarh.2. In his order dated the 16th January, 1923, the learned Sessions Judge refers to certain irregularities which wrere committed at the trial in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate.3. It is not necessary for me to refer to all that is set out in the referring order of the Judge nor perhaps would I be able to subscribe to all the criticism which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed upon the procedure in the Deputy Magistrate's Court. However, there is this much to be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has laid stress upon an irregular order which was passed by the Deputy Magistrate on the 14th November, 1922. The Deputy Magistrate has been asked for an explanation and his explanation ...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.617
Lindsay, J.1. These three applications are directed against an order of the District Judge of Allahabad granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicants, Ram Narain, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings arose out of a civil suit for preemption in which Ram Narain was a defendant and in which the other two persons, Gopi Ram and Badri Prasad, appeared as witnesses.2. Application was made to the Munsif for sanction to prosecute these three persons. The Munsif refused sanction. An application was then made to the District Judge under Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned District Judge has granted the sanction.3. If these applications which are now before me are to be treated as applications in revision they are governed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on that footing the learned Counsel for the applicants has not been able to satisfy me that the Court below has either exerc...
Kunwar Pal and anr. Vs. Bakhshi Madan Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All428; 71Ind.Cas.645
Lindsay, J.1. This is a defendants application under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was a suit, by the Zemindar to recover Rs. 10 on the allegation that the defendants who were his tenants had wrongfully cut and carried off a babul tree belonging to him, the plaintiff.2. The defence set up was that the tree had been planted by the defendants, was their own property and that they had done no injury to the plaintiff whatever.3. After a lengthy trial in the Court below, which was a Court of Small Causes, the claim of the plaintiff was decreed.4. The defendants now come up and argue that the case was not within the cognizance of the Small Cause Court, and this plea is based upon the provisions of Article 35(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This clause provides that a suit for an act which is, or save for the provisions of Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code would be, an offence punishable under Chapter XVII of the said Code is a suit ...
Jasua and ors. Vs. Emperor Through Jaldhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All332; 71Ind.Cas.696
Lindsay, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel in support of this application in revision and I am of opinion that it cannot succeed. It appears that the applicants were the accused in a case which was being prosecuted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On one of the dates which was fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant was absent and the Magistrate recorded an order discharging the notice which had been issued upon the accused persons to show cause.2. The next day the complainant put in a fresh application to the Magistrate. The complainant's statement was recorded by the Magistrate and thereafter notice was issued to the accused persons calling upon them to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.3. The accused applied to the District Magistrate saying that no fresh proceedings could be instituted against them after the order of the Magistrate cancelling the notice which was issued in the first instance. It seems and was argued in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »