Allahabad Court December 1926 Judgments
Hardeo Das, Nanak Chand Vs. Ram Prasad, Shyam Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All238a
Dalal, J.1. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the defendant was an agent of the plaintiff to carry out wagering contracts. There was no evidence of the defendant having derived any profit under those contracts and so the plaintiff's suit as to profits was rightly dismissed. The question, however, remains regarding the recovery of Rs. 400 deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant by way of security. The lower appellate Court dismissed this portion of the suit also, referring to a single Judge case of this Court, Changa Mal v. Sheo Prasad [1920] 42 All. 449. We are not in agreement with that decision. It rested on a ruling of the Bombay High Court, Daya Bhai, Tribhovan Das v. Lakhmi Chand, Pant Chand [1885] 9 Bom. 358. The Bombay case was decided on the basis of a special Act, Bombay Act III of 1865, which has no operation in these provinces. As far back as 1903 a Bench of this Court held that an agent, who has received money to the use of his principal on an illegal c...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubar Dayal and ors. Vs. Mulwa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All288
1. In our view, some of the cases have gone too far in holding that an act which may be bona fide, and which may be done under a mistaken claim of right or which may be due to a bona fide act of negligence, yet may also be shown to have been done with a criminal motive, or intention is, therefore, a criminal act, and as a consequence exempt under Article 35(ii) of the Schedule of the Small Cause Courts Act. We are not prepared to hold that merely because the facts stated are ambiguous and are, therefore, consistent with bona fides although they are also consistent with mala fides according to the correct inference to be drawn, the act is therefore, one necessarily of the kind referred to in this clause of the Schedule, We think that something more ought to be shown, namely that the plaintiff either by his specific allegations, in the plaint, or in some other form in the course of hearing, or by the nature of the evidence which he tendered at the hearing, distinctly alleged that the off...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Lal Vs. Jai Nandan Lonia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All411
1. A suit for redemption was decreed. The appellant was a party as defendant to the suit because he was in possession. In appeal the argument advanced is that the mortgage was to continue for 30 years from 17th December, 1906, and, therefore, the suit was premature. We, however, find that the appellant has no title to possession and cannot resist the suit for redemption. His case was that the widow of the mortgagee Bhagwanta Lonia put him in possession of the property in lieu of some money due to him from Bhagwanta. There was, however, no registered deed of transfer.2. A large number of rulings was produced before us. We have read them all. They are all based on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in the case of Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli [1915] 42 Cal. 801. That ruling does not imply that a transfer under such circumstances as existed in the present case, could be made without a registered document. We agree with the observations of Mr. Justice Piggott ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Inamullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All241
1. It is unfortunate that this Court should be compelled to interfere twice after an interval of more than one year with the order of the Court below, but we feel that we have no alternative in this case and that there ought to be a fresh sale. There are several unsatisfactory features about the case. First, the property is valued at Rs. 1,000 in the sale proclamation. The judgment-debtors originally gave over Rs. 12,000 for it. Some shops have collapsed and some buildings are obviously dilapidated. This would depreciate the value of the property very much, and the Judge in this case says 'it can hardly be worth more than half,' which would be Rs. 6,000. He then goes on to say that in his opinion the property would be worth a little more than Rs. 3,000. This is rather a big jump from Rs. 6,000, but it explains a specific finding by the Judge that the property fetched a low pride and the judgment-debtors have suffered. The low price was Rs. 1,550 and, therefore, the figure in the sale p...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Kurmi Vs. Jagdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All321
Lindsay, J.1. On the 22nd of May, 1915 Babu Jagdeo Singh, who is one of the plaintiffs in this suit, executed a sale-deed marked Ex. A which is printed at p. 51 of our record. By this deed he purported to sell absolutely to the defendant Mathura Kurmi a 6 anna 3 pies share situated in village in the Basti district named Mundila Khurd. It was recited in the deed that the executant had received the entire amount of consideration from the vendee according to the details set out at the bottom of the deed, and it was declared by the executant that from the date of the execution of the deed the vendee was to take possession and to enjoy the income of the property generation after generation. The deed was declared to be a deed of absolute sale.2. The sum of Rs. 15,000 is mentioned in the document as being the consideration for the sale. This sum, with the exception of an item of Rs. 242-4-0, consists of various items constituting debts which were owing by Jagdeo Singh to Mathura Kurmi and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Mohammad Ismail Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All246
Dalal, J.1. The Secretary of State for India in Council has appealed from an award of the District Judge of Bulandshahr under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894). The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant accepted the correctness of the market value of the land assessed by the learned Judge at Rs. 1,800. Exception was taken to the amount of Rs. 6,200 awarded by the Court under the provisions of Section 23, Clause 4 of the Act which lays down that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded the Court shall take into consideration the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, in any other manner. The purpose for which the land was acquired was stated in the publication under Section 6 of the Act to be the establishment of a market. It so happens that the applicants have already got ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi Chand Vs. Lachho and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All258
Boys, J.1. This was a suit for sale on an hypothecation bond, dated the 16th of February 1910. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to set out the whole history of the case in detail. It is very carefully and fully set out in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge to be found at page 14 of the printed book. The facts may be stated briefly. Bakhtawar Lal, the owner of the estate, died leaving a widow Gangadei. Gangadei proceeded to squander the estate. Upon her death Mst. Lachho, her daughter, came into possession. For the purpose of challenging some of the transactions entered into by Gangadei, Mt. Lachho raised money by executing a simple mortgage of Rs. 5,000, on the 15th of February 1910, in favour of Baldeo Singh, of certain house property. On the 5th of November 1917, Mt. Lachho surrendered her rights in the estate of her father in favour of her son Puranchand, the next reversioner. By that deed she stated:I hereby relinquish all my life-interest in the movable...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Lachhmi Chand Vs. Musammat Lachho and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.764
Boys, J.1. This was a suit for sale on a hypothecation bond dated the 16th of February, 1910. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to set out the whole history of the case in detail. It is very carefully and fully set out in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge to be found at page 14 of the printed book. The facts may be stated briefly. Bakhtawar Lal,the owner of the estate, died leaving a widow Gangadei. Gangadei proceeded to squander the estate. Upon her death Musammat Lachho, herdaughter, came into possession. For the purpose of challenging some of the transactions entered into by Gangadei, Musammat Lachho raised money by executing a simple mortgage of Rs. 5,000 on the 15th of February, 1910, in favour of Baldeo Singh of certain house property. On the 5th of November, 1917, Musammat Lachho surrendered her rights in the estate of her father in favour of her son Puranchand, the next reversioner. By that deed she stated 'I hereby relinquish all my life-interest in...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Puri and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All308
Ashworth, J.1. The question referred to me by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, is as follows: The Secretary of State brought a suit for possession of certain land against the defendants-appellants. The plaint was valued for Court-fee according to the estimated market value of land, i.e., Rs. 3,00,000. The suit was decreed. The defendants in their appeal stated the value of the land to be Rs. 3,00,000 but paid a Court-fee of Rs. 1,425 instead of Rs. 2,425 which was the proper Court fee on the said valuation. Before the Taxing Officer the appellants' contention was that the land not being subject to revenue should have been valued under Section 7, Clause V at 15 times the net profits arising from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint and not according to the market value, and that the plaintiff had paid an excessive Court-fee. The Taxing Officer, while apparently admitting that the appellant is correct as to the valuation re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikam Singh and anr. Vs. Bharat Indu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All296
1. The lower appellate Court relied on Akbar Khan v. Turaban [1909] 31 All. 9. Its attention was not directed so Sheopher Singh v. Durnarain Singh [1912] 10 A.L.J. 413, Kali Prosad Missir v. Harbans Missir [1919] 17 A.L.J. 588 and other cases in which it was held that the revenue Court proceedings gave the plaintiffs a new cause of action. It is agreed by counsel for the appellants and for the respondents both that no question of limitation can therefore arise in this case, and that the suit must be remanded for decision by the lower appellate Court on the merits. Order accordingly. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »