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.
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Jugul Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.967
1. This case has never been heard. The learned Judge, as a rule, takes great trouble with his cases, but the sooner District Judges in charge of insolvency matters learn that they must get to close quarters with a case and find the necessary facts before they attempt to apply the law the better, because this sort of thing causes a great deal of trouble and waste of time and it is not sufficient for a Judge to seize hold of a vague clause in. the section that for some other sufficient reason' no order ought to be made, unless he makes it clear what that sufficient cause is, and what the surrounding circumstances of the case are. If, when the Act is properly administered, the surrounding circumstances of the case are. found to be such as to justify an order being made independently of the ''sufficient cause,' then the Court of Appeal has a right to overrule the finding of the. learned Judge on the question of sufficient cause even though it is merely a question of discretion. If, however...
Harish Chandra and ors. Vs. Mt. Kastola Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All68
1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The mortgage was executed in the year 1889. Under the twelve year's limitation laid down by the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai (1907) 30 Mad. 426, the suit would have been time barred. The Legislature, however, by Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908 extended limitation to a period of sixty years from the date when the money became payable or two years from the passing of the Act whichever period first expired. This period expired in the case of the present mortgage on 8th August, 1910. Before its expiry, on 24th. January 1910, the mortgagee made an admission of liability. He made a subsequent admission on 1st July, 1916, within twelve years of the former admission. The suit was filed on 2nd January, 1919. The question is whether the acknowledgment of 24th January, 1910, was a good acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.2. In our opinion it was Section 19 requires that the ac...
Shiam Sundar Ram and anr. Vs. Ram Het and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All130a
Dalal, J.1. One point of law has been pressed here in this application for revision from an order of a Court of Small Causes. There was a dispute between two persona as to the ownership of certain standing crops. So the crops were cut and placed in the custody of a trustee until the matter of ownership may be decided by a Court. Before any decision could be arrived at the defendant took away the crops from the trustee. The plaintiff, therefore, sued the defendant for the price of the crops in the Court of Small Causes.2. It is argued hero that that Court had no jurisdiction because Article 35(ii) of the second schedule provides that what is exempted from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is a suit for compensation for an act, which is or would be but for the exception of the Indian Penal Code, an offence punishable under Chapter 17 of that Code. What is meant by the contention is that the defendant was guilty of theft, and therefore, the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdictio...
Tika Ram Vs. Daulat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All465; 80Ind.Cas.661
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Neave, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun, returning a plaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It illustrates the importance of the questions of this character which arise, and it also illustrates the necessity of the courts being somewhat careful in applying the law so as not to impose an unreasonable and unanticipated burden upon commercial men, of being dragged from their place of business to defend suits, 800 miles away in parts of the world with which they have no concern whatever. This inconvenience is illustrated by the misfortune that we have not had the advantage of hearing counsel in this case on behalf of the respondent who resides and carries on business in Bombay. Dr. Katju, however, on behalf of the appellant, has argued the matter very fully, and has really taken us over all the ground which is relevant. The suit arises out of a relationship of the following character:The plaintiff carries on some sort o...
Piari Lal, Gopi Nath Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All691
Dalal, J.1. Only one point is decided by the lower appellate court, that the plaintiff, the firm of Piari Lal Gopi Nath, had no right to sue the East Indian Railway Company for damages caused on the consignment. The consignment was made from Kidderpore docks to Shikohabad by the firm of Hemraj, Durga Das. The consignor endorsed the railway receipt to the plaintiff's firm which took delivery. The plaintiff's firm then brought this suit for price of seven bags, the shortage in the consignment when it arrived at Shikohabad. The learned Judge of the appellate court was of opinion that there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant companies and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue. The language of the judgment, however, is in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge was of opinion that a carrier's contract is with the person in whom the property in goods is vested at the time the contract of carriage was entered into. The learned Judge did not go further and ...
Sobha Ram Vs. Tursi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All495; (1924)ILR46All693
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's, appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property and mesne profits. The plaintiff also offered to let the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 redeem him if they chose to do so.2. The facts of this case are as follows :--On the 5th of July, 1889, a mortgage-deed was executed by one Dharamjit ostensibly in favour of Tursi It is not now disputed that this Tursi was benamidar for Sobha Earn, the real mortgagee. On the 27th of July, 1896, Dharamjit sold the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to Ganga Earn and Dhanwant. It may be stated that although the sale-deed stood in the name of these transferees, the mutation of names was subsequently effected in favour of the sons of these persons. It is not necessary at this stage to state all the circumstances under which the mutation of names was effected in that way, as that question has not been gone into by the court below.3. On the 20th of December, 1909, Sobha Ram, the real mo...
Chheda Vs. Achhu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All690
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Neave, J.1. Only one point arises for decision in this appeal. The appellant was a tenant in the village which admittedly has not been partitioned. It is alleged that some sort of private arrangement had been come to between the co-sharers under which the plots occupied by the appellant had fallen to the lot of Achhu Singh, the defendant respondent. The appellant failed to pay his rent and Achhu Singh dispossessed him. The appellant filed a suit against Achhu Singh and certain others for possession and mesne profits in the civil court. The learned Munsif decreed his suit, holding that he had jurisdiction and that the suit was not barred by Section 79 of the Tenancy Act. The lower appellate court has come to the opposite conclusion on the subject of jurisdiction and has taken the view that the respondent Achhu Singh being a co-sharer in the patti is a landlord of the present appellant within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. It has accordingly held that...
Sukhdeo Rai Vs. Ram Chandar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All706; 83Ind.Cas.24
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Neave, J.1. This is an appeal from a refusal to appoint a guardian. The whole thing appears to have been misunderstood by everybody from beginning to end. Irrespective of the merits, which will hereafter have to be inquired into, the simple facts are that the minor is a girl, who is unmarried, and who was born in August, 1916, and is, therefore, rising eight years old. She has lost her mother, and her father applied to the District Judge to be appointed guardian. That application in itself was a fallacy. You cannot appoint a father guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. He is the natural lawful guardian already of his own minor children, and nothing can take that from him. As the Privy Council have said: 'It is a sacred duty of which he cannot divest himself, if he wishes.' He can delegate the performance of the daily duty of looking after the child and for that purpose place the child in the custody of somebody else. If he does so, it then becomes a questio...
Lala Dwarka Dass Vs. Rai Bahadur Shah Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.80
1. In 1906 two simple mortgages were executed over the property in suit one in favour of the plaintiff and the other in favour of one Bhagirath. The defendant acquired the right of Bhagirath and brought the property to sale under his mortgage. The plaintiff was made a party to the suit. It should be mentioned that the plaintiff had also acquired the equity of redemption from the original mortgagor and was in possession of the property in that capacity. The decree in the defendant's suit was for sale of the property subject to the prior lien of the plaintiff though it is said that that lien was not entered in the final decree. On the property being brought to sale, the defendant purchased it himself. He thereupon obtained, possession through the Court as against the plaintiff. He also obtained mutation of names in the revenue papers. It is admitted in the plaint and has been admitted throughout the proceedings that the plaintiff has lost possession. He brings the present suit, not for r...
Firm Peare Lal-gopi Nath Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All574; 82Ind.Cas.351
Dalal, J.1. Only one point is decided by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff, the Firm of Peare Lal Gopi Nath, had no right to sue the East Indian Railway Company for damages caused on the consignment. The consignment was made from Kidderpore docks to Shikohabad by the Firm of Hemraj-Durga Das. The consignor endorsed the Railway receipt to the plaintiff's firm which took delivery. The plaintiff's firm then brought this suit for price of seven bags, the shortage in the consignment when it arrived at Shikohabad. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court was of opinion that there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant companies and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue. The language of the judgment, however, is in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge was of opinion that a carrier's contract is with the person in whom the property in goods is vested at the time the contract of carriage was entered into. The learned Judge did not go further and en...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »