Allahabad Court April 1924 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.
Firm Raghunandan Ram-gopi Ram Vs. the G.i.P. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.1
1. This appeal arises out of a claim by the plaintiff against the G.I.P. Railway for the value of two bales of cloth sent by that Railway from Bombay to Rasra and not delivered. Three bales were consigned of which only one was delivered. The Railway pleaded in defence that they were protected by a Risk Note in form B under which the goods were consigned. The plaintiff denied the execution of the Risk Note. The Trial Court decreed the suit on a finding that execution of the Risk Note was not proved. The Risk Note form was signed on behalf of the plaint-iff by one Shankar Balaji. It appears that this man signs a very large number of Risk Notes and his evidence is that when the details are being agreed upon he sometimes signs the printed from and leaves the details to be filled in by the Railway clerk afterwards. These details include the number of the rail receipt, the nature of the goods and the Stations from which and to which the goods are consigned. The Trial Court also held that los...
Bijadhar Bhagat Vs. Jeat Chamar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All518; 80Ind.Cas.601
1. We are satisfied that this decision is right and that it would be idle to issue notice. The case had got into a muddle by the time it reached our brother Mr. Justice Kanhaiya Lal, but on the view of the evidence taken by him, there can be no doubt that the law laid down is correct. The point is quite simple. It is found that Manohar, the predecessor of the plaintiff, was the holder of an occupancy tenancy. This he purported to lease in 1897 for 23 years to one Ram Kishun, the Zemindar of the village. It would appear doubtful whether Ram Kishun interested himself very much in the tenancy, and whether he actually cultivated or occupied, but there is no doubt that at a later date, Bijadhar, who was also defendant in the suit, came into possession. If he came into possesssion with the permission of Ram Kishun, he would be either his sub-tenant or assignee. He would, therefore, be lawfully in possession. Mr. Das says that he has been found to he the Zemindar. It may be so, but it does no...
Shib Lal and ors. Vs. Bihari Lal and ors. and Mohan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All633
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated the 23rd of November, 1880. There had been a previous mortgage, dated the 17th of November, 1860, between the ancestors of the parties, but this was superseded by the later mortgage. The principal terms of the later mortgage deed were that the mortgagees were to take possession and to receive the profits in lieu of interest. They were, however, to pay to the mortgagors an annual sum of Rs. 25, described as malikana, the mortgagors agreeing that they had no further claim against the mortgagees beyond this malikana. It is further stipulated in the deed that there shall be no accounting except as to the Rs. 25 which the mortgagors were to receive every year. It is not disputed that this malikana was never paid. Both the courts below have granted a decree for redemption on payment of the principal mortgage money after deducting Rs. 25 a year from 1886 to the date of suit. In appeal three points have been taken by t...
Thakur Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Thakur Shib Lal and ors. and Thakur Moh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.25
1. This was a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 23rd November 1880. There had been a previous mortgage, dated the 17th November 1860, between the ancestors of the parties but this was superseded by the later mortgage. The principal terms of the later mortgage-deed were that the mortgagees were to take possession and to receive the profits in lieu of interest. They were however to pay to the mortgagors an annual sum of Rs. 25 described as malikana, the mortgagors agreeing that they had no further claim against the mortgagees beyond this malikana. It is further stipulated in the deed that there shall be no accounting except as to the Rs. 25 which the mortgagors were to receive every year. It is not disputed that this malikana was never paid. Both the Courts below have granted a decree for redemption on payment of the principal mortgage-money after deducting Rs. 25 a year from 1886 to the date of suit. 2. In appeal three points have been taken by the learned Counsel for the app...
Bhaun Pratap Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All922; 85Ind.Cas.76
Neave, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, and his learned Advocate states that the matter will not be taken further, whatever the decision of this Court may be. The suit was for partition of certain groves in which the plaintiff claimed one-half share. The genealogy appended to the plaint shows that the parties are descendants from a common ancestor, Aman Singh who has several sons. The plaintiff is the descendant of one of these sons, Pancham Singh, and the defendants are the descendants of: another son, named Harnam Singh. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the sons of Harnam Singh's son Jawahir Singh, have admitted the plaintiff's claim but defendants Nos. 3, 4, 9 and 10, who are descended from another son of Harnam Singh, contested the claim. The remaining defendants did not put in an appearence. The appellant's case, was that originally all the parties were members of a joint Hindu family. Some 40 years ago, separation took place but the groves belonging to the family we...
Puran Vs. Khiali Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All701
Neave, J.1. This is a second appeal against an order of the District Judge of Aligarh, upholding a decree of an Assistant Collector of that district. The suit was one for profits for the years 1325, 1326 and 1327 Fasti, brought by two co-sharers under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act against the lambardar and other co-sharers. The defendant-appellant Puran was also impleaded on the allegation that he bas been a thekadar from the lambardar and had been making collections. Both the Courts below have granted joint and separate decrees against him as wall as against the other defendants.2. It is common ground to both parties that the defendant appellant Puran's tbeka was cancelled before the year in suit. The case against him, as sat out in the plaint, was (1) that he was in possession of a small part of land as khudkasht, and (2) that he had been making collections. Both Courts have found in the negative on the first point, and in the affirmative on the second. In appeal it is argued that, ...
In Re: Mr. W.S. Day, Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All565; 81Ind.Cas.937
1. In this case a notice was issued to Mr. Day, a Vakil practising in Agra, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under paragraph 8 of the Letters Patent with regard to certain statements made by him in paragraphs 4, 12 and 16 of an affidavit filed in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1923.2. The affidavit Avas filed in support of a petition for revision ofan order passed by the Sessions Judge of Agra in a criminal appeal, in which Mr. Day had appeared for the appellants. That appeal was unsuccessful. In his affidavit Mr. Day stated that the Sessions Judge had pre-judged the appeal, that he did not wait for the records to come, and that he was so impressed with the opinion which he had already formed in the absence of the record that he did not appreciate the arguments addressed to him, and was some times inattentive. In reply to this affidavit Mr. Bennett, the Sessions Judge, stated that he might have put some notes taken from the copy of the judgment produced in the ...
Tota Ram Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All631; 79Ind.Cas.997
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision or an order passed by the court below restoring an application for cancellation of a sale. The application was originally dismissed for default. The application to restore was not made within the time allowed by law. The court below has, however, allowed it in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code. It is established by ample authority that Section 151 is not intended to override the express provisions of law. In other words, where the law provides a period of limitation for a particular class of application, the court cannot ignore the provisions of the law of limitation by appealing to Section 151 of the Code. That section is intended for cases for which the strict letter of the law provides no remedy. This was the view taken by this Court in a very recent case, Joshi Shib Prakash v. Jhinguria (1923) I.L.R. 46 All. 144. There are also decisions of the Patna, Lahore, Bombay and Madras High Courts to the same ...
Ram Bharosay and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All707; 82Ind.Cas.1
Daniels, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants decree-holders application for execution is time barred. The application in question was presented on 10th January 1923. The last previous application was made on 31st October 1919, considerably more than three years earlier. The previous application was for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The appellants rely on the fact that when the judgment-debtor was brought before the Court on 17th November 1919 he gave security and applied to be declared an insolvent. As the law stood the Court was obliged to release him from arrest under Section 55(4), Civil Procedure Code. He was released and made an application to the Insolvency Court. While the insolvency proceedings were pending the execution application was struck off. This was on 18th December 1919. On 11th February, 1920, the application to be declared an insolvent was finally rejected. In order to bring their present application within time the decree-hol...
Ram Lal Singh Vs. Behari Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.371
Daniels, J.1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. That objection is, in my opinion, well founded. While the appeal was pending in the Court below the parties agreed to refer their dispute to certain arbitrators. These arbitrators made an award. The award was attacked as vitiated by misconduct on the ground that the arbitrators made secret enquiries. It appears to have been common ground that they had made secret enquiries. The learned Subordinate Judge held that this amounted to misconduct and, therefore, entertained and decided the appeal from the Munsif's decision with out reference to the arbitration. It may be that I should have come to a different conclusion on the legal question, but it cannot be said that the learned Judge acted without jurisdiction or that he acted illegally or with material irregularity in deciding a point of law. which arose before him for decision and which he had jurisdiction to decide. A similar view was taken in the case o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »