Allahabad Court May 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.
Har Prasad Vs. Kewal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All26; 83Ind.Cas.169
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to the property of two brothers, Dewan and Ranjit. Ranjit died, leaving a widow, Musammat Ganeshi, who died some time in April 1920. Dewan died about six or' seven months prior to the suit. The plaintiff' claims to be the son of Multan Singh, a brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The defendants claim to be the descendants of Bhai Singh, another brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The parties are Taga Brahmins. The family to which the plaintiff claims to belong used to reside in the village Jaranda. The allegation of the plaintiff was that his father, Multan Singh, had gone to live in the village Rohana and that in his absence Ranjit, Dewan and Bhai Singh got the family property entered in their names, and that after the death of Multan Singh when the plaintiff claimed his share in the family property or inheritance from his father, the defendants satisfied his claim by giving him a money compensation. His complaint was that on the death of Musammat...
Bhagwati Singh and ors. Vs. Gurcharan Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All96; 92Ind.Cas.332
1. We think that this appeal cannot succeed. The suit was for a declaration that a hypothecation bond executed by the plaintiff's father of ancestral joint property was not binding on the plaintiff, not having been executed for legal necessity. Both the Courts have decreed the suit and the defendants appeal. The bond in question was for a sum of Rs. 177 of which Rs. 165 was paid in discharge of a mortgage on certain property which the plaintiff's father had acquired under a preemption decree. The decree was given him on payment of Rs. 130 which had been paid into Court, The preempted property was however subject to an encumbrance, and the hypothecation bond in suit was executed to pay off this encumbrance.2. Reference has been made to the decisions in Nathu v. Kundan Lal (1911) 33 All. 242 and Chaturbhuj v. Govind Ram A.I.R. 1923 All. 218, which dissented from the decision, in Nathu v. Kundan Lal (1911) 33 All. 242. Neither of these decisions is strictly applicable. In these cases the ...
Gajraj Tiwari Vs. Kunti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All847
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. In our view this decision cannot be upheld. The point is one which has been very much discussed in a variety of forms in which it arises, but the differences of opinion which are alleged to exist are not really differences of principle, or in the view taken of the law, but differences in the application of the principle to the exact set of facts. The moment a decision of a High Court obtains publicity and is believed to lay down the principle that a contract entered into whereby members of the same family, or two branches of the family, or two persons not connected by blood but having interests about which they are not agreed and who come to some sort of compromise in order to avoid further disputes--the moment it is believed that the courts will not give effect to that class of arrangement when it has been mutually carried into effect, there is certain to be a crop of litigation in which some party seeks to apply the principle of the new decision to ...
Munna Lal, Bishambhar Nath Vs. Bengal and North-western Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All844
Neave, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Agra, granting to the plaintiff opposite party a decree for Rs. 357-8 as damages.2. It has been found that the plaintiff booked a number of bags of chillies, at Semaria Ghat station on the Bengal and North-Western Railway, for despatch to Agra Fort station on the East Indian Railway. The goods were despatched on the 5th of May, 1922, and were, not delivered till the 19th of June, 1922,--45 days later. It has further been found on the evidence of the railway company's own witness that the normal time for the journey is from 11 to 16 days. There was, therefore, in this case a delay of a month, and during this interval the price of chillies dropped from Rs. 24-8 a maund to Rs. 21-8 a maund, a difference of Rs. 3 a maund.3. On behalf of the defendant applicant it is contended that as goods were consigned to the railway company under a risk-note in form A, the company is exempted fro...
B.N.W. Railway Vs. Firm Munna Lal Bishambhar Nath and B.B.C.i. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.19
Neave, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the plaintiff-opposite party a decree for Rs. 357-8-0 as damages.2. It has been found that the plaintiff booked a number of bags of chillies at Semaria Ghat Station on the B and N.W. Railway for despatch to Agra Fort Station on the East Indian Railway. The goods were despatched on the 5th May 1922 and were not delivered till the 19th of June 1922, 45 days later. It has further been found on the evidence of the Railway Company's own witness that the normal time for the journey is from 11 to 16 days. There was, therefore, in this case a delay of a month, and during this interval the price of chillies dropped from Rs. 24-8-0 a maund to Rs. 21-8-0 a maund, a difference of Rs. 3 a maund.3. On behalf of the defendant-applicant it is contended that as the goods were consigned to the Railway Company under a risk-note in Form A, the Company is exempted from all liability for loss occasioned to the consignor by the d...
Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Musammat Brij Rani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All794; 80Ind.Cas.39
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal has been filed as an Execution First Appeal from an order dated the 27th of January 1923.2. A compromise decree had been passed in favour of the respondent against the appellant under which the respondent was entitled to recover a sum of money. The appellant filed a declaratory suit to avoid this decree as he was a minor. His suit was dismissed and an appeal was filed in this Court. An injunction was issued from this Court restraining the respondent from proceeding with the execution of her decree. On the 9th of August 1922 the Execution Court stayed proceedings and on the 10th of August it passed an order directing that the execution case should be struck off as the appeal might take a long time for disposal. It, however, ordered that the costs were to be borne by the decree-holder. On an application made by the decree-holder the Court modified its order on the 9th of October 1922 and directed that the decree-holder should get her costs but no notice of this...
Musammat Kunti and ors. Vs. Gajraj Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All826; 83Ind.Cas.297
1. In our view this decision cannot be upheld. The point is one which has been very much' discussed in a variety of forms in which it arises, but the differences of opinion which are alleged to exist are not really differences of principle, or in the view taken of the law, but differences in the application of the principle to the exact set of facts. The moment a decision of a High Court obtains publicity and is believed to lay down the principle that a contract entered into whereby members of the same family, or two brances of the family, or two persons not connected by blood but having interests about which they are not agreed and who came to some sort of compromise in order to avoid further disputes, the moment it is believed that the Courts will not give effect to that class of arrangement when it has been mutually carried into effect, there is certain to be a crop of litigation in which some party seeks to apply the principle of the new decision to himself and to escape from the b...
Raja Babu Vs. Balmukund and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All214; 83Ind.Cas.323
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs respondents to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them as minors under the guardianship of their father Beni Madho, on the ground that their father was improperly appointed as their guardian in the previous suit, that they were not liable for the debt, and that the decree is not binding on them. The father was himself a defendant in the previous suit, and was also impleaded as guardian of his sons. The two questions which arise in a case of this kind were laid down in Chatter Singh v. Tej Singh A.I.R. 1921 All. 393. They are-1. Whether the guardian was irregularly appointed?2. Whether the minors have been prejudiced?2. Both these questions have been answered by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs. There may be some doubt as to the proper answer to the first question but the defendant-appellant is undoubtedly entitled to succeed on the second.3. The suit was brought on two hundies. Notice was issued to Be...
Sri Ganeshji Maharaj Vs. Lalta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All801; (1924)ILR46All842; 82Ind.Cas.312
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore in the execution department. A suit was brought by one Lalta Prasad against Sri Ganeshji Maharaj under the management of Shiam Lal, Shiam Lal, and two other defendants, for partition of a one-third share and mesne profits for six years prior to the date of the institution of the suit and subsequent mesne profits up to the date of possession. A preliminary decree was passed on the 27th of June, 1918, for possession and for mesne profits of the past six years and future. The decree-holder obtained possession of his one-third share and took out execution for recovery of mesne profits by sale of the one-third share of the house, belonging to Sri Ganeshji Maharaj. The objections made on behalf of the endowment, through its manager, so Ear as we are concerned in this appeal; are two: (1) that interest should not be allowed on the mesne profits from ear to year, and (2) that the amo...
Lala Santi Lal and anr. Vs. Raj NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.65
1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly as follows: The decree-holders, who are the respondents in this appeal, brought a suit of mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree the mortgaged property was sold and on 29th March, 1921, an application was made to the Court under Order XXXIV, Rule 6, Schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the passing of a money-decree against the mortgagors. The judgment-debtors, who are the appellants in this Court, filed objections to the granting of the application, once on 30th April, 1921, and then on 7th May, 1921. In fact, the objections were that the application was barred by time and the decree-holder had prepared the account without giving credit for all the sums realised and without calculating the interest by the proper method. The lower Court decided the question of limitation alone and held that the application was time-barred. An appeal was preferred to this Court, and by a judgment, which will be found...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »