Allahabad Court February 1925 Judgments
G.i.P. Railway Vs. Firm Radhey Mal Manni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All656
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise a judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore.2. The respondent consigned goods in nine bags to Salamatpur from a railway station at Cawnpore. When the goods arrived at Salamatpur, it was found that two of the packages sent were not the same as had been consigned at Cawnpore. The person who wanted to take delivery on behalf of the consignees proposed that seven of the bags should be handed over to him and the two remaining bags which did not belong to the consignment, should be left there. The station master did not agree to this arrangement. Later on, higher railway officials wrote agreeing to this arrangement. Even then the station master at Salamatpur would not agree that the seven bags admitted to be a part of the consignment should be removed. Thereafter, there was some correspondence and the suit was brought. Several defences were taken, including a plea of limitation, and they have all been decided against the defendants; henc...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Kaniz Fatma Vs. Imamuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All704; 87Ind.Cas.756
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise a judgment of a learned Judge of the Small Cause Court.2. It appears that the applicant who was the plaintiff in be Court below purchased a house from the respondent. The respondent assured the applicant that there was but only one encumbrance over the property. It however, turned out that one Hazari Lal also held a simple-mortgage over the property. Hazari Lal brought a suit on the mortgage and obtained a decree for sale. The applicant, as the purchaser of the property to save it, had to pay a sum of Rs. 170 and she sued the respondent to make her good this amount.3. The learned Judge of the Court below dismissed the suit on the ground that the parties had express stipulations for compensation, and as the ease did not fall within those express stipulations, the suit could not be maintained.4. I am afraid the learned Judge has entirely misread and misunderstood the ruling he purported to follow. The ruling is the case of Ram Chander v. Bha...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad-badri Prasad Vs. the Bombay Baroda and Central India Rail ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All780; 87Ind.Cas.763
Mukerji, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore for recovery of compensation for non-delivery of goods consigned. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the question is whether the decree of the Court below was incorrect. It appears that on the 27th July 1922, a bale of cotton goods was consigned to the opposite parties for delivery at Cawnpore. The plan recites that on the 21st of August 1922, the plaintiffs sent their man to take delivery of the goods who paid the freight, handed over the railway receipt and obtained a gate pass in order that ho might remove the goods. When, however, the goods were to be actually removed they were found missing. On these allegations the suit was brought for compensation. In paragraph 7 of the plaint the cause of action was stated to have arisen on the 21ht August 1923. It appears to me that this date viz., 21st August 1923, is merely a slip for 21st August 1922, the d...
Tag this Judgment!Hazari Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All813
Mukerji, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of a suit for partition.2. The parties are relations, and they are related in this way: Gobind Sahai had two sons, namely, the Defendant No. 1, Hazan Lal; and Gur Sahai Mai, father of the Plaintiffs 1 to 3. The other plaintiffs are the sons of Plaintiffs 1 and 2. The defendants, other than Hazari Lal, Defendant No. 1, are the sons and grandsons of Hazari Lal.3. The plaintiffs came into Court with the allegation that the family, consisting of all the parties, was still joint; that the entire property was the joint property, the plaintiff's share being one half; and that owing to dissension in the family it was not possible for the parties to go on amicably. On these grounds the plaintiffs sought partition of the property.4. The defence was that the family had already separated 30 years prior to the institution of the suit; that although certain of the properties were still held jointly between the parties, certain other properties deta...
Tag this Judgment!Jodha Singh Vs. Padey Gokaran Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All622; 87Ind.Cas.225
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance and is accordingly laid before a Bench of two Judges.2. Briefly the facts are these. A preliminary decree for sale was passed in favour of the appellant and one Dina Nath on the 31st of January 1911. The appellant purchased the share of Dina Nath in the decree and on the 2nd of January, 1914, well within three years of the passing of the preliminary decree, applied to the Court to pass a final decree. Notices were issued to the judgment-debtors and to Dina Nath who had been made an opposite party to the application and the case was adjourned from time to time. On the 17th of July, 1915, when the case was ripe, the appellant happened to be absent. The defendants never appeared. In the absence of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order which, though ambiguous, has been treated as amounting to an order dismissing the suit for default. On the 28th of September, 1916 the appellant put in an application before ...
Tag this Judgment!(Syed) Oon Mohamed Vs. Mt. Bint Zohra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All645; 87Ind.Cas.414
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. We think the decision of the lower Appellate Court in this case is correct. The case is a case under the Agra Pre-emption Act (XI of 1922). One of the pleas which was raised by the defendant purchaser was that the plaintiff pre-emptor had been told about the proposed sale and had intimated that he did not desire to purchase the property.2. It was argued in the Court below and it is argued here that the terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the Agra Pre-emption Act ought to be applied to this case and that it ought to be held that a notice under Section 14 should have issued to the plaintiff as being a person who was entitled to a right of pre-emption. As regards this argument it is sufficient to say that Section 14 does not make it obligatory on the vendor to give a notice to a person who has a right of preemption.3. Reference is also made to Section 15 which deals with the extinction of the right of pre-emption of any person to whom a notice has been given under Section 14...
Tag this Judgment!Anantoo and anr. Vs. Ramrup Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All692
Mukerji, J.1. To understand the points raised in this appeal it will be necessary to examine the pedigree to be found at p. 11 of the printed paper-book. Tha court of first instance found that the brothers Jageshwar and Mohar were joint and Ganesh, the son of Jageshwar was the last surviving male member of the family consisting of the two brothers and a son, and nephew Ganesh. It appears that three sale-deeds were executed by two ladies. Mt. Bhagirathi, widow of Mohar, executed sale-deed No. 1 on the 4th of January, 1909, for a sum of Rs. 399, on the 20th of September, 1910, Mt. Upman, the widow of Jageshwar, and Mt. Bhagirathi executed the second sale-deed for the sum of Rs. 1,250; and on the 17th of June, 1918, the same two ladies executed the third sale-deed for tha sum of Rs. 299.2. The first four plaintiffs are the sons respectively of Jagat and Sahdeo Ganesh died in February, 1910 and his mother, Mt. Upman died about two years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs No...
Tag this Judgment!Kamoda Singh Vs. Ramchand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All719; 87Ind.Cas.434
Lindsay, J.1. There is no question in this case as to the existence of the right of pre-emption but the question is whether under custom as recorded, the plaintiffs had a better right to pre-empt than the vendee-appellant.2. It appears that the plaintiffs pre-emptors are co sharers in the same khewat and patti with the vendor. The vendee on the other hand, is a co-sharer in a different thok.3. The wajib-ul-arz lays down that a claim for pre-emption can be made when a co-sharer proposes to sell his property and it sets out a number of classes of parsons in order who will be entitled to claim preemption.4. The first class entitled to pre-empt consists of own brothers; the second class of cousins and nephews; the third class, co-sharers in the same patti; the fourth class of co-shavers in the thok; and the last class consists of co-sharers in the village. It is not to be doubted that on the language of the wajib-ul-arz these classes are set out in order of preference; the strongest claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Anantoo and anr. Vs. Ram Rup Tiwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.315
1. To understand the points raised in this appeal it will be necessary to examine the pedigree to be at page 11 of the printed paper-book. Then Court of first instance found that the brothers Jageswar and Mohar were joint and Ganesh, the son of Jageshwar, was the last surviving male member of the family consisting of the two brothers and a son and nephew Ganesh. It appears that three sale-deeds were executed by two ladies. Musammat Bhagirathi, widow of Mohar, executed' sale-deed No 1 on the 4th of January 1909 for a sum of Rs. 399. On the 20th of September 1910, Musammat Upman, the widow of Jageshwar, and Musammat Bhagirathi executed the second sale-deed for the sum of Rs. 1,250 and on the 17th of June 1918 the same two ladies executed the third sale-deed for the sum of Rs. 299.2. The first four plaintiffs are the sons respectively of Jagat and Sahdeo. Ganesh died in February 1910 and his mother. Musammat Upman died about two years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Mulay Vs. Balgobind and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All456; 87Ind.Cas.349
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant and arises under the following circumstances. Respondent Bal Govind held a simple money decree against one Kanak Singh who has since died, and in execution of the decree Kanak Singh's property, which is now in dispute, was attached, Sale proclamation was issued, but no sale was effected. On the 11th of September, 1920, the executing Court passed a certain order, the effect of which has to be considered in this appeal. The order was somewhat in the following language:Since the decree-holder has failed to pay the cost of munadi (proclamation of sale by beat of drums) the execution case be struck off as infructuous the attachment will stand. The execution costs will be paid by the judgment-debtor.2. Four days later, the decree-holder again applied for execution. the Court held that the order dismissing the execution application for default was really a wrong order because nothing whatever was to be done by the decree-holder towards the sale be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »