Allahabad Court April 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.
Kedar Nath Vs. Har Govind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All605; 95Ind.Cas.913
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss said to have been 'occasioned to him by the delay of the defendant in paying certain money, which was left with him by the plaintiff for the payment of a prior mortgage.2. On the 22nd August 1908 the plaintiff executed a mortgage bond in favour of Bohra Khetpal for Rs. 5,000 repayable with interest at 6 per cent. per annum, and mortgaged two villages, Araila and Sikrari, as security for its repayment. On the 7th June 1913 the plaintiff sold the village Araila to Har Govind, the defendant-respondent, for Rs. 5,000 and left the entire consideration with him for payment to the prior mortgagee. That money was to have been paid according to the sale-deed in part satisfaction of the prior mortgage. But Har Govind did not pay that money till the 22nd September 1916. One of the conditions entered in the sale-deed was that if the vendee failed to pay the money left wi...
Panna Lal and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All109
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. There is no force in the appeal. The plaintiffs sued for arrears of rent due in respect of a holding in the cultivatory possession of the defendants. The defendants were the original zemindars. They mortgaged their zemindari share with possession with one Puranmal in 1894, but they did not give him actual possession over the area under their cultivation. On the other hand it is admitted that they retained possession of it and paid rent to Puranmal for the same. Subsequently in a suit filed by Puranmal for the recovery of arrears of rent against them there was a compromise between Puranmal and the present defendants, and the claim of Puranmal was decreed for arrears of rent at a certain rate in 1913.2. Later on the present plaintiff purchased the proprietary interest of the defendants at an auction sale, and brought a suit for the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage of 1894 and obtained a decree on the 26th July 1920, by which he was directed to pay not only the a...
Lala Johari Mal and ors. Vs. Chandra Sen and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.798
1. This is an appeal from an order of the lower Appellate Court refusing to entertain an appeal by the plaintiffs, Benwari Lal and Johari Mal. The opinion of that Court was that no appeal lay. In the Trial Court of the Subordinate Judge, the suit was adjourned for hearing to 30th January 1925. On that date Benwari Lal plaintiff was present in Court and applied for an adjournment on the ground that one of his witnesses was not present, and the other who was present had not brought with him the account books which he was directed to bring, The Trial Court refused to adjourn the hearing and when the plaintiff expressed his inability to proceed with the trial of the suit, the Court dismissed the suit, stating in its judgment that it was dismissed for default. From the order sheet in the Vernacular, it appears that Benwari Lal was present throughout the proceedings up to the time when the Subordinate Judge passed the order of dismissal.2. The question is whether the suit was dismissed under...
Raja Ram Vs. Chhadammi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All475; 95Ind.Cas.147
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that certain property was mortgaged by Gokul Chand in favour of Chhadammi Lal, his cousin, on the 20th of May 1909. Subsequently another mortgage was made by Gokul Chand in favour of Raja Ram, the present plaintiff-appellant, on the 6th of September 1911.2. On the 18th of August 1920 Chhadammi Lal filed a suit on his mortgage making Rajaram a party to that suit. The defence of Rajaram was that the mortgage deed had been paid up, but before that plea could be tried, the counsel who appeared for Chhadammi Lal stated that the mortgage bond held by Rajaram had been paid up, and that Rajaram should consequently be exempted from the claim. Rajaram, however denied that the money due on his mortgage bond had at any time been paid, but the Courts, acting on the statement of the counsel for Chhadammi Lal, exempted Rajaram from the claim withou...
Prem Behari Lal Vs. S.B. Billimoria and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All524; 95Ind.Cas.570
Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge, in the exercise of his original jurisdiction, under Section 215 of the Companies Act of 1914, in the voluntary liquidation of Shandell Brothers & Company, Limited, Cawnpore, at the instance of the liquidators, Messrs. Billimoria & Co., holding one Prem Behari Lal, who is really Shandell Brothers, and the original vendor to the Company, liable for the sum of Rs. 30,000. The matter does not appear to have been satisfactorily argued before the learned Judge, whose attention was not called to the existing state of the law upon the main question which arises, and it will be simpler to treat the matter in our judgment as though the application was made to us, in other words, in the nature of a re-hearing.2. The application made by the liquidators in writing, dated the 20th of December 1924, is not a satisfactory method of stating the real nature of the question which the Court was asked to decide. Shortly stated, without...
Babu Ram Vs. Badri Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.689
1. This is a revision against a decree of a Small Cause Court. The parties to this suit were co-defendants in a previous suit. A joint decree for costs was passed against them and the plaintiff claims contribution. The suit has been dismissed on the broad ground that no suit for contribution lies in respect of a joint decree for costs unless the plaintiff can prove a special equity. In support of this proposition the Court below relies on Mulla Singh v. Jagannath Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 684 : 32 A. 585 : 7 A.L.J. 720. That case can no longer be considered an authority for the proposition stated in the head-note. Its authority has been gravely shaken by subsequent decisions of this Court and in particular by the decisions in Ram Sarup v. Baij Nath 58 Ind. Cas. 324 : 45 A. 77 : 18 A.L.J. 872 : 2 U. P. L. R. (A.) 299. and Parsotam Das v. Lachmi Narain 69 Ind. Cas. 688 : 45 A. 99 : 20 A.L.J. 890 : A.I.R. 1923 All. 67. In both these cases a suit for contribution was allowed and in the former the ...
Maharaj Mathura Prasad Vs. Kodari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.558
1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by an Appellate Court allowing the plaintiff at the Stage of appeal to withdraw his suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C. P. C. with liberty to bring a fresh suit. It has been held in a number of cases that such an order is open tore vision where the Court allowing the withdrawal has not exercised a judicial discretion in the matter. This find to be the case here. The suit was a perfectly simple one. The property in dispute belonged toy Musammat Dallu, widow of Mangli. It was alleged that Musammat Dallu had sold it without legal necessity. The plaintiff claimed, to be-the next, reversioner, as being the son of Mangli's brother Beni Ram. The learned Munsif found, that the plaintiff was not the son of Beni and, therefore, had no title. He accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff in the application for withdrawal which he presented to the Appellate Court did not specify any technical defects-by reason of which he claimed to t...
Mohamed Sher Khan and ors. Vs. Chamman Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All456; 94Ind.Cas.949
Sulaiman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover by way of contribution a share of the decretal amount paid by the plaintiff. The decree was a joint decree for damages against, the defendants. The amount claimed was less than Rs. 500. In my opinion no second appeal lies to the High Court, The suit was obviously one of a Small Cause Court nature, and a second appeal is barred. The learned vikil for the appellants relies on Clause 41 of Schedule 2, of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That clause obviously applies to suits for contributions brought by a sharer in joint property in respect of the payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. This is not the case here. The parties are not sharers in any joint property at all. They are co-judgment-debtors jointly liable to pay the amount of the decree. I may refer to Roshan Lal v. Ram Lal (1907) 4 ALJ 543 and Ant Ram v. Mithan Lal AIR 1918 All 167.2. It is lastly urged that this appeal should be treated as a revi...
Nand Kishore Vs. Badan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All575; 95Ind.Cas.578
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. In execution of a decree held by Nand Lal against Mt. Chanda Dei and Kameshri Singh, certain property was put up to sale as ancestral property, belonging to the Judgment-debtors, by the Collector. The sale was held on the 20th November 1916 and confirmed on the 2nd January 1917. The property was purchased by Badan Singh, who obtained a certificate of sale on the 4th April 1917 from the Collector, and in pursuance of that certificate of sale he subsequently obtained formal possession from the civil Court on the 23rd May 1917. When the auction-purchaser applied for the entry of his name in the revenue papers, the judgment-debtors filed an objection as to the nature or extent of the interest purchased by the auction-purchaser, and while that application was pending, the judgment-debtors made an application to the Collector, asking that the certificate of sale should be corrected, to bring it into conformity with the property actually sold, as specified in the proclamati...
Municipal Board of Benares Vs. Behari Lal and Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All538; 95Ind.Cas.1030
Dalal, J.1. This application in revision from a decree of a Small Cause Court raises interesting questions of Municipal law and of the liability of a corporation for the acts of its servants. Unfortunately the lower Court has written a confused judgment and we have been unable to discover what its findings are of fact or of law.2. The suit was brought for the recovery of damages for loss caused to the respondent, the owner of a brick kiln, by the defendant Municipal Board of Benares closing a certain road which led to the brick-kiln for a longer period than was necessary for the purposes of repair. Malice of the Municipal Engineer, Mr. Mitra, was pleaded and it was alleged that the road was closed by him without reason: (1) for a longer period; and (2) at both ends at the same time, in order to injure the business of the plaintiff out of spite. There is no evidence of malice on the part of Mr. Mitra and no finding by the lower Court. In 1923 the plaintiff, a Municipal servant, was dism...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »