Allahabad Court May 1924 Judgments
Sheo Kumar and anr. Vs. Balgobind and Mahtab Kuar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All864
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. These are three appeals by certain second mortgagees, and a lessee of the mortgagor, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated ,the 7th of September, 1922, rejecting an application fo set aside under Order IX, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure a decree absolute for foreclosure. The parties are persons of position, but the history of the case illustrates the astounding complications and delays whch arise in this country, in effecting service, in fixing dates for hearing, in determining the real controversy between the parties, and in enforcing decrees, and also the difficulties with which' this Court is frequently confronted, owing to the gross negligence of the officials in the subordinate courts, instances of which generally come to our notice when it is too late to investigate the matter with any hope of saddling the responsibility on the right shoulders. This case, in which the only substantial issue, namely, how much is du...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Balgobind Vs. Sheo Kumar and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All818; 82Ind.Cas.184
1. These are three appeals by certain second mortgagees, and a lessee of the mortgagor, against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated the 7th of September, 1922, rejecting an application to set aside under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree absolute for foreclosure. The parties are persons of position, but the history of the case illustrates the astounding complications and delays which arise in this country, in effecting service, in fixing dates for hearing, in determining the real controversy between the parties, and in enforcing decrees, and also the difficulties with which this Court is frequently confronted, owing to the gross negligence of the officials in the Subordinate Courts, instances of which generally come to our notice when it is too late to investigate the matter with any hope of saddling the responsibility on the right shoulders. This case, in which the only substantial issue, namely, how much is due under two ordinary mortgages, m...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ratan Singh Vs. Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All860
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. This was a suit for contribution in respect of a decree for mesne profits and costs passed jointly against the parties in the year 1912. A pedigree is given in the judgment of the court below. The parties are a son and grandsons of Daryao Singh, one of three brothers. The property in respect of which the decree for mesne profits was passed was that of a' pre-deceased brother, Puran Singh, whose widow, Musammat Sartaj Kuar, held possession of it till 1912 when she died. The present parties claimed a one-third share in the property on her death as collaterals, and obtained possession and got an order for mutation from the revenue court. The representatives of the other two branches filed a suit for possession and mesne profits and were successful. The plaintiff paid the entire decretal amount in 1918. Hence the present suit1.2. The property was originally held by Musammat Sartaj Kuat under a partition deed of the 7th of January, 1902. Under this deed the represen...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Vs. Bulaqi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All858; 83Ind.Cas.880
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether a decree can be passed in favour of the defendant on a suit for the taking of partnership accounts under Order XX, Rule 15, of the Code of Civil Procedure, if it turns out on taking the account that there is a balance due to the defendant instead of to the plaintiff. Both the courts below have found that, instead of there being any sum due to the plaintiff on taking accounts, there is really a very considerable sum due to the defendant. On this finding the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant filed cross-objections. The learned Additional Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and gave effect to the cross-objection of the defendant by passing a decree in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,230-3-0. The appellant contends that the only case in which a decree can be passed in favour of the defendant is when a set-off is claimed by Order XX, Rule 19. The view of ...
Tag this Judgment!Moazzam Ali Vs. Raza Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All856; 81Ind.Cas.851
1. In our opinion this decision cannot be supported. The learned Judge has misapplied the decision in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Khan v. Ahmad Said Khan 6 Ind. Cas. 219 : 7 A.L.J. 761 : 32 A. 503 which was founded upon an earlier case, namely, Mahadeo Prasad v. Bindeshri Prasad 30 A. 137 : 5 A.L.J. 101; A.W.N. (1908) 51 : 3 M.L.T. 208 in which it was held 'that the appointment of a guardian to a minor, not being a matter of private right as between parties, is not a question which can be settled by reference to arbitration'. That is to say, the Court has a kind of parental control over a minor, and a special jurisdiction over the guardian, and it cannot allow that jurisdiction to be taken out of its hands by any private arrangement between the parties. In the decision in the case in Mohammad, Ibrahim Khan v. Ahmad Said Khan 6 Ind. Cas. 219 : 7 A.L.J. 761 : 32 A. 503 that principle was applied to the mere appointment of a mutwalli, and we express no opinion as to whether it was rightl...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Ratan Singh, Minor Through Musammat Sumitra Vs. Karan Singh and o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.269
1. This was a suit for contribution in respect of a decree for mesne profits and costs passed jointly against the parties in the year 1912. A pedigree is given in the judgment of the Court below. The parties are a son and grandsons of Daryao Singh, one of three brothers. The property in respect of which the decree for mesne profits was passed was that of a predeceased brother Puran Singh whose widow Musammat Sartaj Kuar held possession of it till 1912 when she died. The present parties claimed one-third share in the property on her death as collaterals and obtained possession and got an order for mutation, from the Revenue Court. The-representatives of the other two branches, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits and were successful. The plaintiff paid the entire decretal amount in 1918, Hence the present suit.2. The property was originally held by Musammat Sartaj Kuar under a partition deed, of 7th January 1902. Under this deed the representatives of Daryao Singh's branch were...
Tag this Judgment!Alice Georgina Skinner Vs. Kunwar Mukarram Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All77
1. In our opinion this appeal must succeed. The learned Judge says this ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a dangerous proposition. We think that almost any excuse for ignorance might be accepted under these circumstances if it were necessary for us to consider whether we ought to extend time. But we are of opinion that no extension of time, or concession of any kind, is required by the appellant. The difficulty has been to ascertain what the law is. It now turns out that the appellant was right and the Judge was wrong.2. The Punjab High Court (Cf. A.I.R. 1924 Lahore, 65), after an exhaustive enquiry have ascertained that when the Act of 1920 was enacted by the Government of India, the period provided in the appropriate column opposite to Article 177 was 'six months.' No slovenly use of the word 'ditto,' a word which ought to have no place in any statute at all, has anything to do with the matter. The period was six months.3. The Amending Act XXVI of 1920 did not touch Article 17...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Baldeo Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All770; (1924)ILR46All851; 82Ind.Cas.285
Boys, J.1. In this case one Haidar Husain, an agent of two persons, Baldeo Prasad and Lachhman Prasad, lodged a complaint under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against one Nand Kishore, on the 10th of April, 1923. That case was inquired into and dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the 20th of April, 1923. The subsequent proceedings deal with the question of whether Haidar Husain and Baldeo Prasad and Lachman Prasad should or should not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for having lodged or abetted the lodging of a false complaint against Nand Kishore. In view of these subsequent proceedings and the delay that had occurred in taking action against Baldeo Prasad and Lachman, it is important to note that no new facts are alleged to have come to light since the 20th of April, 1923, when the case against Nand Kishore was dismissed. This is important because there has been a tendency to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that delay is a ground...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner Vs. Kunwar Mukarram Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.330
1. In our opinion this appeal must succeed, The learned Judge says this ingorance of the law is no excuse. It 'is a dangerous proposition. We think that almost any excuse for ignorance rhight be accepted under these circumstances if it were necessary for us to consider whether we ought to extend the time. But we are, of opinion that no extention of time, or concession of any kind, is required by the appellant. The difficulty has been to ascertain what the law is. It now turns out, that the appellant was right and the Judge was wrong. The Punjab High Court, of. Gobind Das v. Rup. Kishore 77 Ind. Cas. 409 : 4 L. 367 : 6 L.L.J. 25 : (1924) A.I.R. (L) 65 after an exhaustive enquiry have ascertained that when the Act of 1920 was enacted by the Government of India, the' period provided in the appropriate column opposite Article 177 was 'six months' No slovenly use of the word 'ditto' a word which ought to have no place in any Statute at all, has anything to do with the matter. The period was...
Tag this Judgment!Bechu Pande Vs. Mt. Dulhma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All8
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Mt. Dulhma in favour of her daughter Musammat Maharaji is invalid as against the right of the reversioners. The pedigree of the family to which the parties belong is given in the judgment of the Court below. Musammat Dulhma's husband, Ram Adhin, was the last survivor of the joint family to which he belonged and on his death Musammat Dulhma succeeded to a widow's interest in the property. She has three daughters who are all alive and are defendants to the; suit, and at the time of the institution of the suit there was also a daughter's son, Bachcha, who was Defendant No. 5. This child has since died.2. The gift was in favour of one only of Musammat Dulhma's three daughters. The Courts below have held that it was valid as an acceleration of the widow's life interest. This finding is erroneous. It was held by the Privy Council in. Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden A.I....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »