Allahabad Court April 1926 Judgments
Mool Chand and Ram Prasad Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All517
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant firm against the Municipal Board of Banda. The plaintiff's case was that between the 19th July 1920 and 23rd of August 1920, 18,783 maunds of grain were exported by him by railway from Banda city station to different places, and that he was entitled under the rules regulating the payment of refund of octroi to a sum of Rs. 586-15-6 which the Municipal Board had refused to pay. The plaintiff accordingly claimed this sum with interest. The defence of the Municipal Board was that the plaintiff firm had failed to comply with the said rules and consequently had never under these rules become entitled to the refund of octroi claimed. The first Court, the Munsif of Banda decided that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the rules but he held that such failure was no bar to his maintaining a suit in the civil Court for the refund. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Banda it was held that complia...
Tag this Judgment!GosaIn and ors. Vs. Puran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All542; 95Ind.Cas.582
Mears, C.J.1. This is a reference submitted to the High Court under Rule 17 of the rules and orders relating to the Kumaon Division.2. This High Court is asked to give a ruling as to whether the Commissioner was right in upsetting the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court on a point of fact by taking into consideration the evidence on the record on which the first appellate Court had come to a contrary conclusion. The position is this: We are not asked to say whether we prefer the judgment of the Commissioner or the judgment of the District Judge. What we are asked to do is to consider what was the matter in dispute between the parties, by what documents and evidence the case was proved, what were the documents and evidence which led the District Judge to the conclusion at which he arrived, and what were the documents and evidence which led the Commissioner to the conclusion that be arrived at, and was he the Commissioner entitled to come to a contrary finding which in effec...
Tag this Judgment!Bindraban Alias Balmukund Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All369
Sulaiman, J.1. (3-5-1926)-I think the Division Bench has taken care to refer only one point of law to the Full Bench, viz., if goods are put on a train at one particular station in a sealed wagon, and subsequently at a later station, they are found missing from it, the evidence of the theft being provided by the only fact that the seals are broken, whether the theft amounts to 'robbery from a running train' within the meaning of Risk Note B. The question whether in this particular case there was or was not wilful neglect has not been referred to this Full Bench, and I am not called upon to express any opinion on that point. Had it bean necessary to say anything I would not have been prepared to accept in its entirety all that has fallen on the point from the lips of my learned brother who is presiding over this Bench.2. The point which we have to decide is whether the word 'robbery from a running train' means simple theft unaccompanied by any force or show of any force to any person, a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Singh and anr. Vs. Gangoo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All541; 95Ind.Cas.626
Daniels, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants sued as reversioners of Anandi Singh to redeem certain property mortgaged by Anandi Singh's widow. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that they are not the nearest reversioners, their father who is admittedly alive being nearer in degree. This point seems to have been conceded at the hearing of the appeal in the Court below. In this Court the appellants have urged:(1) That the appellants should be treated as nearer reversioners than their father.(2) That if this plea fails, the Court below should have substituted their father as plaintiff in their place.2. On the first point the appellants rely on the passage from the Mitakshara quoted in Section 513, p. 742, of Mayne's Hindu law, ninth edition, where the sons of the maternal uncle are mentioned as bandhus, but the maternal uncle himself is not mentioned. It has been held in a number of cases, and is now settled law, that the enumeration of bandhus in the Mitakshara is not exhaustive, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dungar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All603; 95Ind.Cas.938
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal by seven persons who have been convicted and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 each under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant No. 4, Ghasita, I am informed by the learned vakil for the appellants is dead. I have, therefore, considered the case of six of these appellants The facts are that the Collector of Bulandshahr was camping at Dadri and thieves entered the tent in which Mrs. Acton and four children were sleeping with property of considerable value. The thieves did not steal any of the jewels which were in cases in the same tent. No trace of the thieves could be found until the Sub-Inspector received some information that Dungar, the first appellant, was concerned in the theft; and he sent for Dungar, who made a confession before the Magistrate on the 27th November 1925.2. Investigation followed, and 12 persons were sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr. Ten of them were cha...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi NaraIn Das and anr. Vs. Hirdey NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All480; 97Ind.Cas.4
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants before this Court were the first two defendants in the Court below and were described as the principal defendants. The respondents other than the Respondent No. 9 were the plaintiffs. The Respondent No. 9 was described as the pro forma defendant. The plaintiffs brought the suit for recovery of a certain amount of money said to be payable by the principal defendants and in the case of their failure to pay the plaintiffs claimed possession over the property in suit. The property in suit may be briefly described as the village of Chandoi, though only a certain share in the village is in dispute. The allegations in the plaint were traversed by the principal defendants who called upon the plaintiffs to prove their case. They also raised a point of law, viz. the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit on the allegations made in the plaint. The learned Judge in the Court below did not decide the questions of fact involved in the case. He decided the ques...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Saithwar Vs. Bindeshri Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All639; 95Ind.Cas.844
1. The decision of the lower appellate Court has been contested on two main grounds.2. In the first place it is argued that the decision of a Settlement Officer is binding on the civil Courts, and in the second place it is urged that in any case the decision of the Revenue Court to which this matter was referred under Section 202 of the Agra Tenancy Act is so binding. The settlement is a recant one and the land in suit was found by the record officer and by the Commissioner in appeal to be a grove held by the defendant. A grove of this nature must by statute be included in the register of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land referred to in Section 32(e) of the Land Revenue Act. An attempt has been made on behalf of the respondent to claim that as this is a grove, it is, therefore, not included in the word 'land' in Section 32(e). No definition of 'land' is given in the Land Revenue Act and we conclude that the word must be intended in its widest sense, and it is not subj...
Tag this Judgment!Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Sheo Darshan and anr. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.197
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. On the 10th of January 1896, a mortgage-deed was executed by Ram Hit Gir in favour of Raja Ram and Sita Ram for a sum of Rs. 6,000 at Rs. 9 per cent, per annum interest, of properties in Paraxon and Chhachharia. One of the conditions in the mortgage-deed was that interest would be paid every year, and in case of default the mortgagees would be put in possession. A further covenant was to the following effect:If the amount of interest be not paid in any year and the mortgagees enter into possession and occupation (of the property), the amount of interest for the period prior to obtaining possession shall carry interest at the aforesaid rate after yearly adjustment (of account).2. It is an admitted fact that interest was not paid regularly for sometime, and also that the mortgagees did not obtain possession till 1898. On the 15th February, 1898, the mortgagees admittedly obtained possession of one village Parakon only,...
Tag this Judgment!Jado Singh and ors. Vs. Natthu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All511
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit brought by three minor sons to challenge an alienation made by their fathers. The eldest plaintiff was about six months old at the time of the alienation, which was on the 16th of October 1912, and the other minors were not born at all.2. The allegations in the plaint were that the fathers of the plaintiffs, who were impleaded in the suit as pro forma Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, fell into the hands of avaricious parsons and became fond of speculation and gambling and were addicted to vicious habits, and in consequence they transferred ancestral property under a sale-deed of the date mentioned above in favour of the ancestors of the principal defendants without any legal necessity. There was no clear and categorical statement in the plaint that consideration had not passed, but the main allegations were that the transfer was without legal necessity and that it was tainted with immorality and illegality, and had furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Tursi Ram and ors. Vs. Basdeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All567
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants before us were the defendants party No. 1 in the Court below. The plaintiffs in the suit are now the Respondent No. 1 and his minor son Ramgopal. They brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for the partition of property, moveable and immovable, on the allegation that they and the defendants first party formed a joint Hindu family subject to the Mitakshara law and that it had been found impossible for the plaintiffs to live with the defendants jointly.2. The pedigree, set forth as a part of the plaint, will show that one Bansidhar had three sons, Tursi Ram, Defendant No. 1, (now one of the appellants), Makkhan Lal and Basdeo (Plaintiff No. 1 and one of the respondents). It was the plaintiffs' case that Makkhan Lal separated from the family during the lifetime of his father Bansidhar and had ceased to do anything with the family, the rest of the family continued joint and on the death of Bansidhar the family property belonged jointly and equall...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »