Allahabad Court July 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.
Budh Sen, Pusp Chand Vs. Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Compa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All55
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from an order of the court of Small Causes.2. The plaintiff firm despatched 57 bundles of cotton weighing 63 maunds and 2 seers from Balrampur station, which is on the B.N.W. Railway, to the Agra Fort station, on the B.B. and C.I. Railway. According to the allegations in the plaint, the staff of the defendant company, when asked, gave out the rate of freight on cotton to be Re. 1-8 per maund, and it was on this understanding that the plaintiff despatched the goods from Balrampur to Agra Fort under the railway receipt No. 9937, dated the 19th of September, 1921. The plaintiff goes on to allege that though the actual weight of the goods despatched was 63 maunds, the staff of the railway company illegally and Unjustifiably charged Rs. 223-2 for 108 maunds, and that the extra amount was paid by the plaintiff under prortest which he is entitled to recover from the defendant. The written statement which was filed by the defendant company was very vague and s...
Sher Muhammad Khan Vs. Parbhu Lal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.41
1. The sole question for decision in this appeal is, whether the existence of the custom of pre-emption which was pleaded by the plaintiffs in the Court below was established on the evidence submitted to the Subordinate Judge.2. The property sought to be pre-empted is situated in a village in the Saharanpur district known as Lakhnoti Kalan.3. The evidence in support of the custom consisted of a wajib-ul-ars prepared at the Settlement of 1867 A.D. Another wajib-ul-arz was prepared in 1296F, corresponding with 1889. In addition to these two wajib-ul-arzes the plaintiffs produced a decree showing that a claim for pre-emption had been decreed in the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur in the year 1907. The judgment of the Munsif was based upon the provision of the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 which is in evidence in this case.4. There was no rebutting evidence put forward on the part of the defendants.5. The full text of the wajib-ul-arz of 1867 is before us and it has been argued at great length th...
Bombay, Baroda and Central Indian Railway Company Vs. Firm Budh Sen Pu ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All180; 79Ind.Cas.562
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision from an order of the Court of Small Causes.2. The plaintiff firm despatched 57 bundles of cotton weighing 63 maunds and 2 seers from Balrampur station, which is on the B.N.W. Railway, to the Agra Fort, on the B., B. and C.I. Railway. According to the allegations in the plaint the staff of the defendant Company when asked, gave out the rate of freight on cotton to be Rs. 1-8-0 per maund and it was on this understanding that the plaintiff despatched the goods from Balrampur to Agra Fort under the Railway Receipt No. 9937, dated the 19th of September 1921. The plaintiff goes on to allege that, though the actual weight of the goods despatched was 63 maunds, the staff of the Railway Company illegally and unjustifiably charged Rs. 223-2-0 for 108 maunds, and that the extra amount was paid by the plaintiff under protest which he is entitled to recover from the defendant. The written statement which was filed by the defendant Company was very vague and somewha...
Rati Ram Vs. Birmajit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1923
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.82
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act from a decree of the Judge of Small Cause Court, Mainpuri, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's case in the plaint was that the defendants had executed a sale-deed of certain crops on the 9th of February 1921, in his favour, that one Kirat Singh attached these crops and an objection being preferred to the attachment by the plaintiff the Execution Court dismissed his objection on the 13th of May 1921; that after that the defendants took away the crops and also refused to return the sale consideration; hence the suit.2. In their written statement the defendants pleaded that the whole of the sale consideration had not been paid. They also said that it was the plaintiff himself who had appropriated the crops and that no part of the crops came into the possession of the defendants; it was further pleaded that the attachment in a your of Kirat Singh had fallen to the ground for want of pay...
Sital Prosad and ors. Vs. Dukhi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All40
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of pos1 session of certain ornaments and jewellery a which were valued at Rs. 280. The Courts below have decreed the claim.2. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have coma up in second appeal and on their behalf the main point that is taken is that the suit was instituted in the wrong Court. It is their contention that the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and that therefore the Munsif in whose Court the suit was instituted had no jurisdiction to try it. If this contention were to prevail there would be the initial difficulty in the way of the appellants that no second appeal would lie. Under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure no second appeal lies in any suit of this nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees. There fore, on the appellants' own showing, no second appeal would lie and t...
Mahadeo Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All201; 81Ind.Cas.140
Kanhaiya Lal, J.The accused applicants have been convicted of an offence under Section 335, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine. They also have been convicted under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months each. It appears that a complaint had been made by a certain girl that slie had been raped by two persons named Mahesh and Ram Lal. The Sub-Inspector went to hold an investigation and came to know that the two accused persons were present in their houses in the village. He deputed certain Police Constables to arrest the accused. When these constables reached the place Mahesh and Ram Lal ran inside the house of Ujagar, and when the constables wanted to enter that house to arrest them, they were stopped by the accused applicants who, armed with lathis, threatened to attack the ctjnstables, if they moved further towards the house. The contention here is that the constables were not armed with a ...
Saheb Singh and anr. Vs. Ms. Indar Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.828
Daniels, J.1. The following pedigree will explain the position of the parties: Babu Ram Singh |-------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Datta Singh Saheb Singh Gayadin Singh Mahabir Singh Pahlad Singh| defendant defendant | died childless| No. 2 No. 3 || ------------------| | |Sukhraj Singh Indra Kuer Somari Kuerdefendant No. 1 daughter plaintiff plaintiff daughter2. The plaintiffs are claiming the property of both their father Mahabir Singh and their uncle Pahlad Singh, the latter having died childless. The defendants are their surviving uncles and the son of a deceased uncle. The facts found by the Court below are that the defendants .Nos. 2 and 3 and the father of the first defendant separated from Mahabir Singh and Pahlad Singh, but that the two latter remained joint. This is a finding of fact supported by evidence and on this finding the plaintiffs are entitled to the property. The only point pressed by the defendants in appeal is that when once ...
Surjan Singh and ors. Vs. Umari Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1008
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a complicated case in view of the multiplicity of the rulings of this Court, some of which are not easily reconcilable with others.2. The present defendant No. 1 instituted a suit in the Revenue Court for arrears of rent against the plaintiffs, and the Assistant Collector by a judgment dated the 21st of January 1921 decreed the claim for Rs. 3-5-4. His judgment proceeded mainly on the presumed correctness of the entries of the Revenue papers and his finding in effect was that plot No. 211/3 which was in dispute in that case was a sir plot belonging to the present defendant No. 1. An appeal was filed from that judgment and was pending in the Court of the Colleotor when the present suit was instituted in the Civil Court for a declaration that the said plot No. 211/3 as well as two other plots Nos. 21l/l and 211/2 were occupancy holdings of which the plaintiffs and the defendants were joint tenants. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was the decree for arrear...
Sital Prasad and ors. Vs. Dukkhi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.409
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain ornaments and jewellery which were valued at Rs. 280. The Courts below have decreed the claim.2. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have come up in second appeal and on their behalf the main point that is taken is that the suit was instituted in the wrong Court. It is their contention that the suit was of a nature cognisable by a Court of Small Causes and that, therefore, the Munsif in whose Court the suit was instituted had no jurisdiction to try it. If this contention were to prevail there would be the initial difficulty in the way of the appellants that no second appeal would lie. Under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure no second appeal lies in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Causes when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed five hundred rupees. Therefore on the appellant's own showing no second appeal would lie and this ap...
Chhiddu Vs. Desraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All394; 77Ind.Cas.753
1. This was a suit for redemption, the appellant being the plaintiff. The principal defendant in the suit was one Desraj who was alleged to be the mortgagee.2. According to the particulars set out in paragraph 2 of the plaint a mortgage was executed on the 3rd of June 1890 by one Atbal Singh, father of the plaintiff. The mortgage was in favour of the first defendant, Desraj, the mortgage money was Rs. 2,100, and the mortgage was with possession.3. The principal defence which was set up in the suit and which was accepted by the learned Judge in the Court below was that the deed upon which the plaintiff claimed a right of redemption, although it had been duly executed and registered, yet did not operate as a mortgage at all, inasmuch as the transaction was entirely fictitious. It was pleaded that this mortgage had been executed by Atbal Singh in favour of Desraj merely in order to defeat the claim for pre-emption which had been brought in respect of the property by one Gopal. It seems th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »