Allahabad Court July 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.
Janki Das Gobind Ram Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All10; 85Ind.Cas.114
Boys, J.1. This case raises an important question as to the rights and liabilities of the public and of the Railways when goods are despatched under an Owner's Risk-Note Form B. Some timber was despatched on 18th from Nimtolla station on the Eastern Bengal Railway to the Jumna Bridge station at Agra for delivery to the 1 plaintiff. Two Railways were concerned, but it is agreed that for the purposes of this case they may be treated as one Company. I shall, therefore, speak of 'the Company.'2. The usual period of transit would be about eight days and there is no question as to what the route should have been, i.e., there is no suggestion of ordinarily alternative routes. The goods were in fact sent by the Railway Company to Jubbulpore, where by some further mistake they were delivered there to the Military Authorities.3. On the 18th of September the timber was traced to Jubbulpore, recovered by the Company and re-booked to Jumna Bridge. On the 25th of September, it was delivered to the p...
Bhagwan Das Marwari and ors. Vs. Suraj Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All146; 84Ind.Cas.1031; MANU/UP/0074/1924
Mukerji, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on a preliminary ground without trying whether the allegations of fact made in the plaint were correct or not. In this Court his judgment has been sought to be supported not only on the ground on which it is based, but also on the ground that the plaint discloses no cause of action.2. The history leading to the institution of the suit is as follows : The plaintiff Bhagwan Das who has since died and the father of Kanhaiya Lal, the defendant No. 11, Duli Chand were brothers. Babu Basdeo Narain Singh and Ram Udit Narain Singh, defendants third party to the suit owned the entire mahal No. 10 in the village of Dudhai, a portion of which, viz., a 10 anna share is in suit. It appears that the entire mahal was mortgaged with Bhajan Rai under two transactions, one being usufructuary and the other a simple mortgage. Duli Chand took a third mortgage which was usufructuary with respect to a 14...
Ram Buran Singh Vs. Mufassil Bank, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All206a
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceedings in execution taken by the assignee of certain decrees and the question, for consideration is whether the assignment was valid and binding on the original decree-holder. The decrees in question had been obtained by the Kayasth Trading and Banking Corporation Ltd., against the present judgment-debtors. They were sold by B. Ram Gharib Lal, who was the manager of the company and one of its Directors, on behalf of the company, and the consideration paid by the assignee was credited in the accounts of the corporation.2. The Articles of Association provided that there shall be a manager of the company whose duty shall be to conduct the whole business of the company and to perform all such works and services as may be necessary to carry on the said company or its branches and such as are usually performed by the manager of a Banking Company. They further provided that the said manager shall be authorised to advance loans to the best adv...
Jokhu Singh Vs. Chunnoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All218; 83Ind.Cas.133
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In a suit decided by the Small Cause Court the defendant has been allowed to pay the decretal money by instalments of Rs. 50 half yearly. The Court below ought to have given reasons why it allowed the payment of the decretal money by instalments. But the omission to give reasons is after all an irregularity, and as held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mt. Rahmat-un-nissa v. Price A.I.R 1917 P.C. the discretion exercised by the Court below ought not lightly to be interfered with.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant refers to the decision in Binda Prasad v. Madho Prasad (1878-80) 2 All. 129, but that was an appeal in which the propriety of the decree could have been challenged on every possible ground. A reference has also been made to the decision in Balgobind Ram v. Chhedi Lal (1910) 11 C.L.J. 431. But where the question is one of discretion the ground why it was refused in one case is not relevant in other oases. The application is, therefore, dismiss...
(Mrs. Alice) King Vs. Mr. King
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All237
1. This is an appeal by a. petitioner in divorce. It is, in fact, a very unusual case. We do not remember any case of the same kind coming up to this Court. The wife is the petitioner, and she originally alleged adultery and cruelty of various kinds and also desertion, casting her net very wide in the petition. The learned Judge, in a careful trial, has come to the conclusion that the acts of adultery mainly relied upon before him are not established, and we are bound to say that we agree. However, suspicious they may appear to the wife herself knowing the character of her husband, they fall short of proof which can be accepted in a Court of law as establishing a serious matrimonial offence or as establishing the offence in this particular case even if it were assumed that the man was a man of loose character. He has apparently not found the cruelty to be established. He seems to think that petitioner was guilty of exaggeration, and there was undoubtedly an absence of independent evide...
Jaswant Rao Vs. Kashi Nath Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All253
1. We do not think that there is any force in this application for revision. The plaintiff-applicant sued on foot of a mortgage bond. The original mortgagor was one Kashi Nath and he sold his right of redemption to Mahanth Parmeshwar Das, defendant. The plaintiff Jaswant Rao is transferee of the rights and interests of the original mortgagee Bansidhar. On a suit being instituted the learned Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage was enforceable. He was further of opinion that both Kashi Nath and Parmeshwar Das who were Brahmins, wore members of an agricultural tribe as defined in the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act. He therefore acted under Clause 3 of Section 9 of the Act because the mortgage had been executed subsequently to the passing of the Budelkhand Land Alienation Act No. 2 of 1903. Ha referred the case to the Collector of the district of Banda with a view to the exercise of the power conferred on the Collector by Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 9. No decree was passed under ...
Shah Muhammad FakhruddIn Vs. Rahimullah Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All458
1. These two applications in revision arise out of the same facts. There were two suits before the learned Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur, the plaintiff of one of which was the defendant in the other. The parties agreed to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration and three persons were appointed arbitrators. Before the arbitrators, the parties stated that they had arrived at a compromise by which the suit instituted by the applicant before us should be decreed and the suit instituted by the opposite party Rahimullah should be dismissed. The arbitrators recommended that the Court should dispose of the two suits according to this compromise. When the matter went before the learned Subordinate Judge, Rahimulla took exception to the award on the ground that the compromise recorded by the arbitrators had been arrived at by means of lottery and the compromise was not binding on him. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to this objection and set aside the award. It is against this orde...
Mrs. Alice King Vs. Mr. King
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.167
1. This is an appeal by a petitioner in divorce. It is, in fact, a very unusual case, we do not remember any case of the same kind coming up to this Court. The wife is the petitioner, and she originally alleged adultery and cruelty of various kinds and also desertion, casting her net very wide in the petition. The learned Judge, in a careful trial, has come to the conclusion that the acts of adultery mainly relied upon before him are not established, and we are bound to say that we agree. However, suspicious they may appear to the wife herself knowing the character of her, husband, they fall short of proof which can be accepted in a Court of law as establishing a serious matrimonial offence or as establishing the offence in this particular case even if It were assumed that the man was a man of loose character. He has apparently not found the cruelty to be established. He seems to think the petitioner was guilty of exaggeration, and there was undoubtedly an absence of independent eviden...
Emperor Vs. Raghunath Venaik Dhulekar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All165; 85Ind.Cas.823
Walsh, A.C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against as acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Jhansi of two members of the public, who had been convicted and severely sentenced by the District Magistrate for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. They had been charged both under Sections 151 and 188 and the Magistrate, without acquitting under Section 151, held that it was superfluous to consider it. The appeal filed by Government treats the charge as one under Section 188. The complaint against the accused is that they, being two Brahmans, and men of education engaged in public life in Jhansi, one of them Raghunath Venaik Dhulekar being a High Court Vakil, and the other Atma Ram Kher being also a High Court Vakil, and Chairman of the Municipal Board of Jhansi, deliberately disobeyed a lawful order of the Sub-Inspector in the streets of Jhansi in the presence of a large number of people. The Sub-Inspector says that he was fetched by a message, and went on a bicycle in c...
Chander Sen Vs. Mohar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All538; 85Ind.Cas.700
1. The judgment of the learned District Judge is entirely untenable. The suit out of which the appeal arose was for profits brought by a co-sharer against a son of a deceased lambardar. The lambardar was not the lambardar for the whole mahal but ha was the lambardar for a ten biswa paid. The plaintiff accordingly described the defendant and his late father as co-sharer and he headed his plaint as a suit; brought under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act. The defendant took no exception to this description of the suit in the written statement and no issue was framed in the Court of first instance which can indicate that any such objection had been taken before it. The suit was decreed partially and there was an appeal by the defendant. There was also a cross objection by the plaintiff. The first ground taken by the defendant before the District Judge was that the suit instituted under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act was not maintainable. The learned Judge was of opinion that this was a very v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »