Allahabad Court May 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.
Bhikki Mal Vs. Lala Raghubir Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.915
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit was one to recover money on a hundi drawn in favour of the payee, the plaintiff, at Muzaffarnagar. It was drawn on the 5th of May 1920 and was payable at sight on Dina Nath-Jasraj of Dehli.2. Both the Courts below have held, as a matter of fact, that there was no presentation, in fact. This under Section 64 of the Negotiable instruments Act would have sufficed by itself for a dismissal of the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, added 'I am nevertheless of opinion, that the plaintiffs are equitably entitled to recover their money. Admittedly the defendant-appellant had taken back his money from the firm of Dina Nath-Jasraj and he could not, therefore, suffer damage for want of presentation.' The learned Judge was presumably refeiring to Section 76 (d) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We think that he is wholly wrong in assuming that the defendant could not have suffered any damage merely because many months afterwards he withdrew his mon...
Faqir Ullah Vs. Hikmat Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All569
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad dismissing the plaintiff's suit on appeal. The grounds of revision are these. The suit was originally instituted before a Munsif having Small Cause Court powers. This Munsif ceased to have jurisdiction, and the case was taken up in the ordinary way by his successor who had no Small Cause Court powers. The evidence had been recorded by the first Munsif. The case was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the second Munsif. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, took a different view and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff's first contention is that the suit continued to be a Small Cause Court suit, and therefore, no appeal lay to the District Judge. This contention is contrary to Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and the fact that a case which is decided under that section by an officer not having Small Cause Court powers must be treated as ...
Prag Vs. Bhagwan DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All734
Daniels, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act. The question for decision is the amount of fee payable on a memorandum of appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for foreclosure of a mortgage has been dismissed. Tan appellant relies on an elaborate judgment of the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Oudh in Sangat Bakhsh v. Rawat Dijdeo Bakhsh A.I.R. 1922 Oudh 82 where it was held that in such a casa the Court-fee payable in appeal is the same as court-fee payable in the Court of first instance, and if the appeal was against a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the Court-fee would be on the amount in dispute. The Taxing Officer relias on the Fall Bench decision in Raghubir Prasad v. Shankear Bakhsh Singh (1914) 36 All. 40. The question is whether the case is covered by the Pull Bench ruling. There appears to me no doubt that it is. That was a case of cross-objections by the defendant asking that a foreclosure decree should be set aside and the suit dismissed, Section 7(i...
Bhiki Mal and ors. Vs. Debi Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All179
Lindsay, J.1. This case is up for admission under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case to which the Agra Pre-emption Act (U.P. Act 40 of 1922) applies, and two points are raised. In the first place it appears that the property which was sought to be preempted consisted of two plots in the abadi. The Courts below have held that under the Pre-emption Act these plots are liable to be pre-empted.2. We can find nothing in the provisions of the Agra Pre-emption Act which lends support to the argument that plots situated in the abadi, mahal or village cannot be pre-empted. Section 5 of the Act declares that a right of pre-emption shall be deemed to exist in mahals or villages in respect of which any wajib-ul-arz prepared prior to the commencement of the Act records a custom, contract or declaration importing a right of pre-emption. Certain properties, by other sections of the Act, are exempt from pre-emption but we can find nowhere in the Act that the abadi plots whi...
Sanwalia and anr. Vs. Nathi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All561
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Subordinate judge of Muttra returning a plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court on the ground that the suit is one for arrears of rent under the Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs are co-sharers in mahal Sanwalia in M. Pingiri in the Muttra district : the defendant is a co-sharer in another mahal known as mahal Ghair khwahindagan. According to the plaintiffs' case, a certain tank is joint between the two mahals, and the zamindars of the former mahal are entitled to a certain share in the produce of it. Id appears that singharas are grown in the tank. The learned Munsif, in whose Court the suit was filed, decreed it in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge, without considering the merits of the claim, held that the amount claimed was rent as defined in Section 4 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction. The learned Subordinate Judge is quite right in saying that, according to the definition, rent may in...
In Re: Jaunpur Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All658
Mukerji, J.1. The liquidators of the Jaunpur Sugar Factory, Limited, in liquidation placed, for the decision of the Court the objection on the part o the firm, Lallu Mal Ramchunder to be put on the list of contributories.2. The case of Lallu Mal, as stated in his Counsels letter addressed to the official liquidators, is briefly as follows:An agent of the Jaunpur Sugar Factory, Ltd., by name of Simeon approached the sole proprietor Ram Chunder in company of a broker Lachmi Narain, with a view to Earn Chunder's purchasing some shares in the Company which had just been started. Ram Chunder trades in sugar and other commodities and he cared more for the profits that might accrue to him by sale of sugar than for any dividend which, the Company might declare later on. He stipulated with Simeon that he would purchase the shares on condition that he was appointed the sole agent of the Company for sale of sugar in Cawnpore. To this Simeon agreed and accordingly Ram Chunder signed the applicatio...
Rudra Parsad Pande and ors. Vs. Mathura Prasad Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All566
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against; an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Basti superseding an award made in a pending case and directing the suit to proceed on the merits. The parties referred the case to arbitration during the pendency of the suit. The arbitrator made an award. Objections were filed to this award. The learned Subordinate Judge held that those objections were valid objections, and passed an order superseding the award under Rule 15, Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure. The result is that the suit will proceed as if no reference to arbitration had been made and it is in fact proceeding. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies under these circumstances as the case has not yet been decided. The Full Bench ruling in Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1921 All. 1 is relied on in support of this argument. We find that the exact point raised in this preliminary objection was recently decided by a Bench of this Court in a reported...
Shagun Chand Vs. Asa Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All807
Boys, J.1. In this case there were certain partition proceedings in the revenue Court the applicants being defendants Nos. 1 - 5 in the suit before us. The Plaintiff in the suit before us raised the question of proprietary title. On the 3rd of August 1921 the plaintiff was directed by the Assistant Collector to bring a civil suit. The fifth issue framed in the first Court was as to whether the civil Court had jurisdiction, objection being taken by the defendants that the Assistant Collector had framed issues and decided to try them and that he had ne power to so change his mind. The trial Court decided this issue and also all the other issues against the defendants and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court Cussed the suit on the preliminary point that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to change its mind and refer the matter to the civil Court2. For the appellant here it is pointed out that the revenue Court had not gone further than framing issues and fixing the date for fina...
Rudra Prasad Pande and ors. Vs. Mathura Prasad Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.173
1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Basti superseding an award made in a pending case and directing the suit to proceed on the merits. The parties referred the case to arbitration during the pendency of the suit. The arbitrator made an award. Objections were filed to this award. The learned Subordinate Judge held that those objections were valid objections, and passed an order superseding the award under Ruler 15, Schedule II of the C.P.C. The result is that the suit will proceed as if no reference to arbitration had been made; and it is in fact proceeding. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies under these circumstances as the case has not; yet been decided. The Full Bench ruling in Buddhoo Led v. Mewa Ram 63 Ind. Cas. 15 : 43 A. 564 : 19 A.L.J. 558. is relied on in support of this argument. We find that the exact point raised in this preliminary objection was recently decided by a Bench of this Court in a reported...
Ganga Devi and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All551
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order directing a sale to be set aside. Under the mortgage decree, which was in execution, the property mortgaged consisted of a one-third share in 12 biswas and odd in the village in dispute. This share was situated in a certain patti, but in the sale proclamation the share advertised for sale was stated to be 7 biswas 13 biswansis share in that patti, and then the area and the revenue of the entire patti were given. The sale was accordingly completed of the 7 biswas, 13 biswansis share in that patti. The judgment-debtor applied to the Court for setting aside the sale on the ground that the decree did not direct the sale of so large a share. This application has been allowed and the entire sale set aside.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the appeal that this was not an application under Order 21, Rule 90 but was under Section 151 of the Code and, therefore, no appeal lies. We, however, think that the application must be treated to be one u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »