Allahabad Court March 1923 Judgments
Bidhi Chand Vs. Kachhu Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All503
Lindsay and Daniels, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a claim brought by the plaintiff Bidhi Chand for certain sums paid by him for brokerage and commission in connection with certain forward contracts for the sale of cotton seeds etc., which he entered into as commission agent on behalf of the defendants. His case was that the defendants were to deliver the goods to him for sale to third parties on forward dates; that the defendants failed to supply the goods and that he had to compensate the buyers for the loss. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the contracts were wagering contracts which are illegal under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. It is not disputed that the contracts were wagering eon tracts. The plaintiff appeals on the ground that Section 30 does not prevent a person who is employed as agent in connection with wagering contracts from recovering sums due to him by his principal. In support of this plea the rulings in Shibho Mal v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Jatan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All185; 81Ind.Cas.153
Ryves, J.1. I agree with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge and quash the commitment to Sessions. I send the case back to the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, who will depute a Magistrate competent to try it other than Mr. Bhadkamkar. Let the papers be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Lala Fakir Chand Alias Kullo Mal Vs. Nanug Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All277; 74Ind.Cas.721
Piggott, J.1. I review of Facts leading up to the Institution of the suit.1. The facts out of this, litigation arise may be stated as follows. About the, end of the year 1900 there were living in Agra four brothers, named Anandi Lal, Narain Das, Ram Dayal and Sham Lal, After the death of their father in the preceding year there had been a separation, accompanied by a complete partition of the joint family assets, between the, brothers. This, again, was speedily followed by a business partnership between Anandi Lal and Ram Narain. No deed of partnership was ever drawn up, but the two brothers undoubtedly re-united in business, while maintaining their status as separated Hindus. Early in 1901 Anandi Lal fell into ill health; reading between the lines of the evidence it seems fairly clear that he was suffering from consumption, and knew it. On May 29th, 1901, he drew up his last Will and testament, which was presented for registration two days later at his residence in the City of Agra. I...
Tag this Judgment!Choudhry Bidhi Chand Vs. Kachhu Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All585; 73Ind.Cas.477
1. This appeal arises out of a claim brought by the plaintiff Bidhi Chand for certain sums paid by him for brokerage and commission in connection With certain forward contracts for the sale of cotton seeds, etc, which he entered into as commission agent on behalf of the defendants. His case was that the defendants were to deliver the goods to him for sale to third parties on forward dates; that the defendants failed to supply the goods, and that he had to compensate the buyers for the loss. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the contracts were wagering contracts which are illegal under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. It is not disputed that the contracts were wagering contracts. The plaintiff appeals on the ground that Section 30 does not prevent a person who is employed as agent in connection with wagering contract from recovering sums due to him by his principal. In support of this plea the rulings in Shibho Mal v. Lachman Das 23 A. 165 : A...
Tag this Judgment!Goswami Ram Puri Vs. Ram Chand Khanna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All501
Rafiq and Lindsay, JJ.1. The subject-matter of the dispute in this case is a small plot of land, No. 1293, situated in Bamapura, one of the quarters of the city of Benares. According to the finding of the court below it has been used lor the cultivation of fruit trees. The parties to the suit arc Hindus, and the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to pre-empt a sale of the plot in question made in favour of the defendant appellant.2. It was alleged in the 4th paragraph of the plaint that a custom of pre-emption prevails in the city of Benares, upon which the plaintiff relied for his right. It was further pleaded in the 6th paragraph of the plaint that the plaintiff had observed the preliminary formalities on hearing of the sale, from which it is to be understood that the plaintiff admits that preemption as exercised in Benares city must be sought and enforced in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Muhammadan law. Both courts have decreed the plaintiff's claim. In appeal the mai...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz and anr. Vs. Nandan Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All497
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:2. The property in suit belonged originally to one Sheo Charan. Tie died leaving a son Sital. Sital had three sons, Debi, now dead, Nandan and Sheo Nandan. On the 6th of August. 1906, Sital made a will in favour of his wife Musarnmat Somari of the property in suit and died soon after its execution. On the 16th of August, 1908, Musarnmat Somari mortgaged the property in favour of the wife of the plaintiff. This suit was brought by the heirs of the mortgagee to recover the amount then due under the mortgage, by sale of the mortgaged property, and it was brought against Musarnmat Somari alone. In the plaint she is described as the mortgagor and there is no mention of her sons. Subsequently, on the application of Nandan Prasad for himself and as guardian of his minor brother Sheo Nandan, they were brought on the record as defendants and they alone defended the suit. They denied the execution of the deed or th...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Singh Vs. Balli Singh and Sheo Nath Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All492
Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.1. The two appeals Nos. 936 and 937 of 1921 arise out of two suits in which the pre-emptor is one and the same person. Both of them raise the same points and were disposed of by one judgment by the learned Judge of the lower appellate court. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this judgment. It appears that Sheonath Rai, Ram Shankar Lal and Dharam Govind were co-sharers in the village of Dilwanspur in the district of Mirzapur, and they executed two sale-deeds on the 31st of October, 1919, in favour of three persons. One sale-deed was executed in favour of Chhedi and Gursaran in lieu of Rs. 2,780 in respect of a portion of the property owned by the Vendors, and the other deed of sale was executed in favour of Balli Singh by the same vendors in respect of another item of property in lieu of Rs. 1,853. Kaghubir Singh, who is a co-sharer in the village, instituted two suits, out of which these two appeals have arisen, for the recovery of two items of...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shimbhu Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All495
Ryves, J.1. This is an unusual case. Shimbhu Narain was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one day's detention till the rising of the court, and a fine of Rs. 200. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrnbhabad and he comes here in revision. The facts are not disputed.2. Shimbhu Narain is a wealthy zamindar and an honorary magistrate in the town of Kanauj. The charge against him is that of having wrongfully confined his brother. Maheshwar Narain, for more than ten days, in fact, from the 29th of March until the 3rd of July, 1922. It appears that Maheshwar Narain is subject to fits of insanity, and, on such occasions, exhibits dangerous and violent tendencies. On or about the 29th of March he certainly became very violent and went about brandishing a sword and threatening to do violence to people. I. think there is no doubt that on that date he was insane and dangerously so. Shimbhu Narain had h...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Sarjo Kuar and anr. Vs. Sheikh Enait and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.331
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal which could never have come into Court is the plaintiffs had been definitely held to their own pleadings, as they certainly ought to have been It appears that in the village in suit there was a certain area of Waste land, appertaining to a sahamilta putti the proprietary rights in which Vested jointly in twenty or more co-sharers One on these determined to bring a number of plots of this waste land under cultivation; but instead of occupying them himself he granted a perpetual lease of the same up two lessees. About a year and a quaver later the lessees finding that their right were being questioned induced seven more of the co-sharers in the patti to grant them another perpetual lease The, present suit was brought by two Co-sharers (subsequently joined by three others) who were dissatisfied with this arrangement They impleaded as defendants the two lessees the lessors and all the remaining co-sharers who had not joined in the suit. The principal r...
Tag this Judgment!Nandan Prasad and anr. Vs. Hafiz Abdul Aziz and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All581; 74Ind.Cas.367
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:The property in suit belonged origin ally-to one Sheo Char an. He died leaving a son Sital. Sital had three sons, Debi now dead, Nandan and Sheo Nandan. On the 6th of August 1906 Sital made a Will in favour of his wife, Musammat Somari, of the property in suit and died soon after its execution. On the 16th August 1908 Musammat Somari mortgaged the property in favour of the wife of the plaintiff. This suit was brought by the heirs of the mortgagee to recover the amount then due under the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property, and it was brought against Musammat Somari alone. In the plaint she is described as the mortgagor and there is no mention of her sons.3. Subsequently, on the application of Nandan Prasad for himself and as guardian of his minor brother Sheo Nandan, they were brought on the record as defendants and they alone defend the suit. They denied the execution of the deed or that there was consideration. In the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »