Allahabad Court December 1925 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.
Pearey Lal Vs. the Allahabad Bank Ltd. and Babu Baijnath Prasad and an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.14
Mukerji, J.1. This is an execution first appeal and has arisen under the following circumstances. A certain suit No. 428 of 1922 was instituted be two persons Baij Nath and Mufli Dhar against one Ganeshi Lal as defendant No. 1 and the Allahabad Bank Ltd., as the defendant No. 2; The suit of Baij Nath andv Murli Dhar was decreed for a sum of about Rs. 8,000 against Ganeshi Lal but it was dismissed as against the Bank. The Bank was awarded costs to the amount of Rs. 53.3-12. The decree was passed on the 27th of March 1923. On the 12th of May 1924 the Allahabad Bank applied for the attachment of the decree obtained by Baij Nath and Murli Dhar against Ganeshi Lal in order to realise the money due to the Bank. Previous to this application for attachment, by a sale-deed dated the, 6th of February 1924 Baij Nath and Murli Dhar had sold the decree held by them against Geneshi Lal to the appellant, Pearey Lai. Ganeshi Lal was declared an insolvent. Pearey Lal as a transferee of the decree obtai...
Ganga Dhar-baij Nath Vs. Bombay-baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.522
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The question raised is whether there was a sufficient compliance with Section 17 of that Act in presenting an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The application was presented on the last day of limitation at about 3 o'clock. It would appear from the judgment of the Court below that it was accompanied by a tender of the amount payable under Section 17, but as no payments are passed by the treasury after 12 o'clock in the day the tender was not returned to the applicant or the money actually deposited in the treasury till the following day. 1 agree with the Court below that this was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 17. The applicant did every thing that was possible for him to deposit the money at the time of presenting the application, and it was only owing to the particular rules in force of the local treasury that it could not be deposited till next day. The pri...
Abdul Majid Vs. Wahidullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All284; 92Ind.Cas.496
Daniels, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant which was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8, as on the date of,, hearing the defendant was present but the plaintiff was absent. An application was made under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the case but was rejected. Against that order the plaintiff appealed to the District Judge. Both the original and the Appellate Court found that there was no sufficient cause for the plaintiff's absence on the date of hearing and that no case was made out for restoration. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal found, however, that the defendant in his pleadings had admitted the claim to the extent of Rs. 288. He, therefore, on the appeal before him passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 288.2. The defendant in revision urges that the Appellate Court had no power to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff on (sic) appeal from an order refusing to restore the suit. This plea is correct and must prevail. Th...
Sheikh Muhammad Ismail Vs. Vahiduddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.503
Mukerji, J.1. This revision arises out of a suit for recovery of money brought on a promissory-note dated the 10th of August 1923 admittedly executed by the respondent in favour of the plaintiff-applicant.2. The Court below has found in effect that the plaintiff was prosecuting one Khairat-ullah for cheating, before cheating was made a compoundable offence. The plaintiff, on consideration of the respondent giving the promissory-note for the sum of Rs. 400, withdrew the complaint with the permission of the Court. On this finding the learned Judge held that the suit on the promissory-note was not maintainable as it was against public policy to receive money or a promise to receive money in consideration of an agreement to stifle a criminal prosecution.3. In this Court it has been urged that there is not only the promissory-note but also the additional facts that on three occasions the respondent admitted his liability for the debt and on the third occasion also sent by money order a sum....
Maulvi Muhammad Afzal Vs. Maulvi Muhammad Mahmud and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.840
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge holding that a certain deed, dated the i7th of March 1880, purporting to be a deed of waqf, did not create a valid waqf. It is sufficient to say that this actual deed has already been on other occasions during the last seven years held to be invalid as a waqf by two subordinate Judges, one District Judge, and twice by two Judge Benches of this High Court, of one of which a member of this Bench was also a member. The last time it came before this Court was in 1923, when it was held to be a gift in favour of private individuals which the donor in the course of the document wrongly described as a waqf, by my Lord the present Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Piggott. The judgment in that case is reported as Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Mahmood 74 Ind. Cas. 343 : 21 A.L.J. 595 : A.I.R. 1924 All. 28. We agree with the view there taken, and in substance with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge in this case. Although the dee...
Chandrabhan Prakashnath Vs. E.i. Ry. Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All299
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff firm whose suit against the East Indian Railway Company has bean dismissed by a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court.2. It appears that a consignment of glass bangles consisting of six bundles was sent to the address of the plaintiff from Wadi Bunder in Bombay for delivery at Ferozabad. Out of the six bundles only four were delivered. It was with respect to the two bundles not delivered that the suit was brought for compensation.3. The learned Judge found that at the Tundla Railway Station, the goods had been handed over to the Bast Indian Railway Company and that, therefore, the East Indian Railway Company would be responsible for the compensation. He, however, held that glass bangles of the value consigned were, under the law, liable to be insured for their safe conveyance and that there being no insurance, and there being no declaration of the value and the contents of the bundles, the defendants were not liable.4. No...
Gokul Das and ors. Vs. Nathu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All477; 92Ind.Cas.492
Mukherji J.1. These two applications in revision may be disposed of by the same judgment as the facts are very similar.2. The applicants who are plaintiffs in two different suits are money-lenders by profession and their practice of money-lending is something like this. They send munims or trusted servants of theirs with money to villages in different districts with instructions to lend money to people who might stand in need of borrowing. It is alleged that the defendants in these two cases borrowed money from the plaintiff's agents, in one case in the district of Bareilly and in the other in the district of Shahjahanpur. The plaintiffs are residents of the district of Moradabad. The debtors did not pay and thereupon they brought the two suits for recovery of the money at Moradabad.3. The defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs' agents who had lent the money in each case went into the witness-box and swore that there was an express agreement by the debtors that they would re-pay the...
Firm Chandrabhan Prakashnath Vs. East Indian Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.622
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff firm whose suit against the East Indian Railway Company has been dismissed by a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court.2. It appears that a consignment of glass bangles consisting of six bundles was sent to the address of the plaintiff from Wadi Bunder in Bombay for delivery at Ferozabad. Out of the six bundles only four were delivered. It was with respect to the two bundles not delivered that the suit was brought for compensation.3. The learned Judge found that at the Tundla Railway Station, the goods had been handed over to the East Indian Railway Company and that, therefore, the East Indian Railway Company would be responsible for the compensation. He, however, held that glass bangles of the value consigned were, under the law liable to be insured for their safe conveyance and that there being no insurance and there being no declaration of the value and the contents of the bundles the defendants were not liable.4. No ev...
Maharaj DIn and ors. Vs. Bhairon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All290; 92Ind.Cas.473
Mukerji, J.1. There is nothing in this case.2. The plaintiffs in the Court of first instance are the applicants here. They alleged in the plaint that they were the proprietors of certain lands, that one Tika had plainted a grove over the lands, that Tika died without heir and the grove went by escheat to the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs from time to time let out the grove to different persons and lastly they let it out to the defendant-respondent that they did not any longer want that the defendant should hold the grove and that therefore, they asked for his ejectment. As for the rent it was alleged in the plaint that the defendant handed over a portion of the produce of the grove as the rent.3. The defendant pleaded, inter alia that he was a grove-holder and not a mere tenant and that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.4. Both the Courts below have held that on the plaintiffs' own allegations the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court.5. I have no doubt that the Cour...
Kalap Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All288; 92Ind.Cas.591a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a Reference by the Sessions Judge of Benares recommending that the conviction and the sentence passed on the accused under Section 34(4) of Act 5 of 1861 should be set aside. The accused is apparently a servant of some lady who deputed him to supply water to all who wanted it at a public place. He set up a chauki (wooden board) with an earthen jar filled with water over it and supplied water to all those who wanted it. According to the order of the Judge it is not clear whether this board was set up on a public way, nor is it clear whether it obstructed the way of the passer-by. But it is not disputed that it was set upon a public open space. Although sometimes some of the persons who took water did voluntarily give tips it is difficult to say that water was actually exposed for sale within the meaning of Sub-clause (4) of the section. The expression 'exposes for sale' implies that every person who takes any quantity of it has to pay for it. This obviously is not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »