Allahabad Court April 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.
Gopi Krishna and Kashi Prasad Vs. East India Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All534
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision directed against an order of the Small. Cause Court and raises a question of the liability of the railway company under risk-note B. The goods in question were consigned from Tarighat near Ghazipur on the East Indian Railway to Manbhum, on the 26th of January, 1922. The goods were not lost nor were they destroyed, but the railway company took five months to convey them and they did not reach their destination until the 25th of June, 1922. The delay was unquestionably unreasonable. The trial court finds that owing to this delay damage was suffered by the plaintiff quite independently of any deterioration of the goods. The ghee was in fact sent with a view to a marriage which had already taken place before the consignment was received. The risk-note B under which the goods were despatched protected the railway company from any claim for damages due to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods or for damage to the consignment except in certain sp...
Majid-ud-dIn and anr. Vs. Ali Jan Khan and anr. and Siraj-ud-dIn and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All524
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed on the 19th of December, 1895, by Wahaj-ud-din and others for a sum of Rs. 30,000 in favour of two persons, Radha Mohan and Madan Mohan. The property mortgaged consisted of a certain pension and a number of houses. The mortgagees were, however, given the option of realizing Rs. 5,000, out of the principal, and interest thereon from the houses mortgaged. The interest on the Rs. 25,000 was payable out of the pension charged and the balance of interest and also the principal were to be paid by the mortgagors.2. It appears that on, the 24th of April, 1918, the mortgagees sold Rs. 5,000, and interest thereof, out of the mortgage money to the plaintiffs, the heirs of one of the mortgagors, namely, Abdus Samad, for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The purchasers now sued for recovery of the Rs. 5,000 principal debt and the interest thereon, the total of which now amounts to Rs....
Haji Ali Jan Khan and anr. Vs. Majid-ud-dIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All499; 81Ind.Cas.275
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed on the 19th of December 1895 by Wahaj Uddin and others for a sum of Rs. 30,000 in favour of two persons Radha Mohan and Madan Mohan. The property mortgaged consisted of a certain pension and a number of houses. The mortgagees were, however, given the option of realising Rs. 5,000 out of the principal and interest thereon from the houses mortgaged. The interest on the Rs. 25,000 was payable out of the pension charged and the balance of interest and also the principal were to be paid by the mortgagors.2. It appears that on the 24th of April 1918 the mortgagees sold Rs. 5,000 and interest thereof out of the mortgage money to the plaintiffs, the heirs of one of the mortgagors,, namely, Abdus Samad, for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The purchasers now sued for recovery of Rs. 5,000 principal debt and the interest thereon, the total of which now amounts to Rs. 34,000, by sale of the houses mortgaged. The appellants b...
Haji Maqbul HusaIn and ors. Vs. Haji Ahmad HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All557; 74Ind.Cas.251
Daniels, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to a small plot of land in the City of Bareilly. The plaintiffs claimed as owners of the land alleging that they had been dispossessed by the first defendant, Hafiz Ahmad Husain, who had built a shop on the plot. They accordingly asked for restoration of possession with demolition of the shop as well as for damages and mesne profits. The Municipal Board of Barelly applied to be and was made a defendant during the progress of the suit. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership and pleaded adverse possession and limitation. The Trial Court decreed the suit and two appeals were preferred to the lower Appellate Court by Hafiz Ahmed Husain and the Municipal, Board respectively.2. The learned Subordinate Judge found oh the evidence that the title in one-third of the land was with the plaintiffs. He found that the plot had been for many years lying unoccupied and that the Municipal Board had been using it for the deposit of ...
Nanjadik Rai Vs. Ram Jatan Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All558; 73Ind.Cas.584
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court. The only plea which has been aruged is that no appeal lay to the Court below, no question of proprietary title having been raised within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 177 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff brought the suit under Section 34 alleging that the defendant was occupying the land without his permission. The contesting defendant, Ram Jatan Rai, pleaded that he was a mortgagee of the proprietary tight. The plaintiff's proprietary right was not in dispute. If the matter were one of , first impression there might, I think, be room for controversy whether the issue whether the defendant was a tenant or a mortgagee from the proprietor does really raise a question of proprietary right; but the question is concluded by the Ruling in Kalyan Mal v. Samad 18 Ind. Cas. 244 : 35 A. 157 : 11 A.L.J. 118 in which it has been held that a question of proprietary right is involved. Following that ruling, I ...
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Firm Gopi Krishna-kashi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All8; 77Ind.Cas.1046
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision directed against an order of the Small Cause Court and raises a question of the liability of the Railway Company under Risk-Note B. The goods in question were consigned from Tarighat near Ghazipore on the East Indian Railway to Manbhum, on 26th January 1922. The goods were not lost nor were they destroyed but the Railway Company took five months to convey them and they did not reach their destination until 25th June 1922. The delay was unquestionably unreasonable. The Trial Court finds that owing to this delay damage was suffered by the plaintiff quite independently of any deterioration of the goods. The ghee was in fact sent with a view to a marriage which had already, taken place before the consignment was received. The Risk Note B under which the goods were dispatched protected the Railway Company from any claim, for damages due to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods or for damage to the consignment except in certain specified cases. ...
Fazal Imam Vs. Mul Raj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All520
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. The property in suit belonged originally to one Musammat Munir-un-nissa. She died apparently in the early nineties, leaving a son Habib Hasan and a daughter Musammat Roshin. The name of Habib Hasan alone was entered in the revenue papers on the death of Musammat Munir-un-nissa, and Habib Hasan has remained in physical possession of the property ever since then. In 1896 he mortgaged this property to the father of Mulraj. That mortgage was paid off in due course. Habib Hasan made another mortgage in 1908 and a third mortgage in favour of Mulraj in 1911. Subsequently Mulraj brought a suit on this mortgage, and having got a decree for sale, put the property up for sale and bought it himself. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Musammat Roshin for a declaration that she was entitled as owner to one-third of the property in suit and for a declaration that the mortgage and sale, so far as her one-third share is concerned, were inoperative. ...
Mul Raj and anr. Vs. Fazl Imam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All583; 74Ind.Cas.307
1. The property in suit belonged originally to one Musammat Munirun-nissa. She died apparently in the early nineties, leaving, a son Habib Hasan and a daughter Musammat Roshni. The name of Habib Hasan alone was entered in the revenue papers on the death of Musammit Munir-un-nissa and Habib Hasan has remained in physical possession of the property ever since then. In 1896 he mortgaged this property to the father of Mulraj. That mortgage was paid off in due course. Habib Hasan made another mortgage in 1908 and a third mortgage in favour of Mulraj in 1911. Subsequently, Mulraj brought a suit on this mortgage and having got a decree for sale put the property up for sale and bought it himself. Thereupon, the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Musammu Roshni for a declaration that she was entitled as owner to one-third of the property in suit and asked for a declaration that the mortgage and the sale so far as her one-third share is concerned were inoperative. She pleaded th...
Mahadeo Vs. Kalloo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.494
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned Judge' of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad, under the following circumstances:In Small Cause Court Suit No. 2891 of 1922 on the case coming on for hearing the plaintiff himself was in attendance but had no witness present. The Pleader for the defendant was also present. The learned Judge dismissed the suit for want of proof. The learned Judge afterwards discovered, or it was brought to his notice, that there was some documentary evidence on the record in support of the plaintiff's claim. He, thereupon, of his own motion and without any application set aside his own decree and fixed a fresh date for final hearing. If the learned Judge had made a mistake in overlooking evidence, the plaintiff had a remedy open to him by application for review under Order XLVII of the Code. When that remedy was open, it appears to me that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code to set aside what...
Ram Dayal Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All518
Ryves, J.1. The plaintiff, Ram Dayal, sued to recover money due to him on a bond executed by the defendant. He filed his plaint on the 15th of May, 1922, which was the last day of limitation. The Munsarim made a report that, although the suit had been properly valued, the court fee paid was insufficient. Thereupon the court gave the plaintiff time up to the 19th of May to make good 'the deficiency. The deficiency was made good on the 17th of May and the plaint was then registered. At the trial the defendant pleaded, among other things, that the suit was barred by limitation. The court found, on the merits, for the plaintiff, but held that the suit was barred by limitation on the authority of Jainti Prasad v. Bachu Singh (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 65. The plaintiff, in revision, urges that that decision is no longer law and that under Order VII, Rule 11, Clause (c), of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had power in its discretion to a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »