Allahabad Court January 1926 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.
Secretary of State Vs. Firm Imperial Metal Works
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All214
Daniels, J.1. This revision from a decree of a Small Cause Court involves the interpretation of Section 77 of the Railways Act. The notice was addressed to the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company the headquarters of which are at Nagpur, The cause of action arose on the 6th day of June and the notice was posted on the 5th December, the last day of the six months at Aligarh and did not reach Nagpur till the 8th in the case of one notice and the 9th in the case of the other. The Judge of the Court below is of opinion that it is sufficient if the notice was posted within limitation whether it could reach the Railway Company within the six months or not. The learned Judge has overlooked the words 'preferred in writing... to the railway administration.' The law requires that the notice should not merely be preferred, but preferred to the railway administration within six months. What this means in the case of a notice sent by post is made clear by Sections 141 and 142 of the Indian Railways Act. I...
Baldeo Kurmi Vs. Kashi Chamar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All312; 92Ind.Cas.995
Dalal, J.1. This is a reference to this Court made by the Collector of Basti under Section 195 of the Tenancy Act, because he doubted whether the appeal pending before him in a particular matter should be filed in a civil or a revenue Court. One Kashi Chamar sued the defendant, Baldeo Kurmi, for ejectment; and one of the grounds of defence was that the defendant cultivated the land in dispute as tenant of the Raja of Bansi and paid rent to him. The plaintiff's case was that he was an occupancy tenant of the land and Baldeo Kurmi was his sub-tenant. The Assistant Collector decided that Kashi was occupancy tenant of the land and that Baldeo was his sub-tenant.2. The learned Collector was of opinion that the appeal would lie to a Civil Court if the principle of the ruling in the case of Har Prasad v. Tujammul Hussain (1919) 4 Unpublished Decisions of the Board 102 were followed. The Board of Revenue has dissented from that ruling in Kundan v. Jawahir (1919) 4 Unpublished Decisions of the ...
Bishunath Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All326
Daniels, J.1. The only point for decision in this revision is whether the suit is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided that it was not. The applicant relies on Article 35(j) of the Second Schedule treating the suit as one for compensation for illegal attachment, The opposite party attached a certain sum of money which was deposited in Court and drew it out of Court. The present suit is to recover that sum of money on the ground that it was improperly attached and drawn out and that it really belongs to the plaintiffs by whom it was deposited. This is clearly not a suit for compensation for illegal attachment but a suit to recover a sum of money received by the defendant which belongs to the plaintiffs. As such the suit was properly brought in the Small Cause Court and I accordingly dismiss this application with costs....
(Hakim) Mohammad Ilyas Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All344
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of Small Cause Court returning a plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to be presented on the regular side on the ground that the case depends upon the plaintiff's title to immovable property. The applicant urges that the defendant was estopped from disputing the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, that no question of title had to be decided in the suit and Section 23 did not apply. It is an admitted fact that the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a document specifically stating that he has taken the house from him on a rent of Rs. 20 a month from a certain date. This, on the face of it, creates a tenancy and gives rise to the estoppel The defendant tries to get out of this in all sorts of ways as by alleging that he had previously taken the house from the plaintiff's brother, who is at logger-heads with the plaintiff and that he merely executed t...
Chotey Lal Vs. Girraj Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All359
Daniels, J.1. The view taken by the Court below in this case is correct. The plaintiff sued on a hundi bearing a one-anna stamp which was not cancelled. On the case coming before the Judge of the Small Cause Court he held quite rightly that the hundi was not receivable in evidence under the provisions of the Stamy Act and he impounded it and sent it to the Collector. The Collector imposed a penalty and improperly endorsed the document as sufficiently stamped, presumably purporting to act under Section 40 of the Act. Section 40 expressly excludes instruments chargeable with a duty of one anna. The Collector's certificate, therefore, was not a certificate given in accordance with the provisions of the section, and the conclusive presumption laid down in Sub-section (2) does not apply to it. I have been pressed with the ruling in Girdari Das v. Jagan Nath (1881) 3 All 115, but that was a case in which the document was voluntarily brought to the Collector to have the stamp duty appraised u...
WahiduddIn Ahmad Khan Vs. Mt. Shamsunnissa Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All378
1. Wahiduddin Ahmad Khan, having been married to M. Shamsunnissa Begum, contracted a second marriage with the widow of his elder brother. This appears to have grievously upset the first wife, and she commenced a suit for dower and ultimately, in 1912, obtained a decree for upwards of Rupees 20,000 against the present plaintiff. That decree was kept alive, and certain sums of money were extracted from the plaintiff, and in June 1922, there was a valid outstanding decree for Rs. 21,827-14-0. On the 19th June 1922, the sister of the plaintiff died, and he thereupon became entitled to a certain share (SIC) her property, which was of the value of some Rs. 30,000 and consisted of certain villages in two parganas.2. On the very day after her death he was minded to make an endowment, and he did in fact, on the 20th June 1922, attempt to create an endowment by which after reserving the sum of Rs. 64 to be given annually to certain specified charitable objects, the balance of the income was to b...
G.i.P. Railway and anr. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal Sharma
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All228; 92Ind.Cas.993
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for short delivery of betel leaves consigned by the G.I.P. and B.B. and C.I. Railway Companies. The applicants are quite right in asserting that the only loss for which the Railway can be held accountable under risk note which applies to this case, even in case of wilful negligence must be loss of a complete consignment or of a complete package or packages forming part of such consignment. The decree may, however, be supported on another ground. The plaintiff did not come into Court alleging loss. He merely alleged that so much betel-leaves had been booked by the railway and that the full amount had not been delivered. There is a long series of cases commencing with Ghelabhai Punsi v. E.I. Ry. Co, AIR 1921 Bom 443 and including several cases of this Court, e.g. E.I. Railway Co. v. Kishan Lal Tirkha Mal AIR. 1924 All 7 and E.I. Railway Co. v. Gopi Krishna Kashi Prasad AIR 1924 All 8 as well as E.I....
The Secretary of State for India in Council and anr. Vs. Firm Makundi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.349
Daniels, J.1. These are two connected revisions against decrees of a Small Cause Court. The facts are these:The rate in force per maund from Manzurgarhi to Howrah in respect of cereals was Rs. 1-5-0 a maund. From the station of Harduaganj which was farther from Howrah, a lesser rate of Rs. 0-10-6 was in force. This had been brought to the attention of the superior Railway Authorities and from 1st July 1922 the rate from Manzurgarhi was reduced to the rate prevailing from Harduaganj. On 14th May, 1922 the plaintiffs in theso suits consigned goods from Mauzurgarhi to Howrah. The Station Master by mistake quoted the lower rate of Re. 0-10-6 a maund and the Railway receipt was prepared accordingly. On arrival at destination the mistake was discovered and the difference between the amount paid and the correct charge was recovered from the consignors. This was done under a condition in the Railway receipt which permits the Railway to re-measure, re-weigh or re-classify the goods or re-calcul...
East Indian Railway Vs. Firm Baldeo Gutain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1007
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision application against a Small Cause Court decree awarding compensation for two bags of sugar forming two complete packages out of a larger consignment which were lost in transit. The lower Court has held that there was wilful negligence on the part of the Railway. The grounds taken in revision are two:(1) That the plaintiff-firm was not entitled to sue because the Railway receipt was granted in the name of its agents.(2) That the Court below was wrong in holding that sealing a wagon with paper only constitutes wilful negligence.2. On the first point even if the name of the principal was not disclosed he is entitled under Section 231 of the Contract Act to sue on the contract. I know of no authority for the proposition that where a Railway receipt is granted in the name of a servant or agent the real owner of the goods cannot claim for their value if lost. On the second point the judgment of the Court below is supported by the ruling in Firm Balram Dass-Fa...
Jai NaraIn Vs. Jafar Beg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All324
1. This case has been argued at length before us and we are asked to interfere with the judgment of the Judge of this Court on the ground that he ought not to have decreed demolition of a certain structure in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The suit was a suit in ejectment the plaintiffs alleging that the defendant had trespassed on a small portion of land belonging to them and had erected a building. The suit was filed in the month of November 1918 and the allegation in the plaint was that the defendant had begun to erect the building during the Civil Court vacation which in the year 1918 lasted from the 20th of September to the 11th of October 1918.3. The plaintiffs prayed for the ejectment of the defendant and also for the demolition of the construction just mentioned.4. The defence was that the land in suit was the property of the defendant and not of the plaintiffs, and a further plea was taken in para. 12 of the written statement to the effect that the claim of the plaintiffs was bar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »