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.
Baldeo Sahai and anr. Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All641; 95Ind.Cas.945
Boys, J.1. This case concerns the operation of the Risk Note Form ''B' provided for the use of consignors of goods. The document is not happily worded. Difficulty arises not infrequently in the trial Courts in determining how for each party has discharged the shifting burden of proof laid upon him by the terms of the document. The facts to which we have to apply the law are simple and are as follows:2. On the 23rd of June 1920, 14 bales of cloth were despatched on behalf of the plaintiffs from Bombay to be delivered by the Railway at Khurja. Thirteen bales were delivered to the plaintiffs at Khurja on July the 14th, 1920, but the 14th bale was never delivered. The plaintiffs brought this suit for the delivery of the 14th bale and damages Rs. 206-10-3, or in the alternative Rs. 952, the value of the missing bale and, in addition, the damages already mentioned. After the case had been dismissed by the Court of first instance and remanded by the lower appellate Court for the defendant Rai...
Gopal and ors. Vs. Collector of Aligarh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All232
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a piece of muafi land occupied by a grove situated in Qasba Koil, close to the town of Aligarh. The land was originally granted by the predecessors of the plaintiff to Sirh Mal, the predecessor of the contesting defendant, for planting a grove, and the question for consideration is whether the descendants of Sirh Mal had a right to sell the grove to Chunna and Ram Lal, and are liable to ejectment in consequence. The allegation of the plaintiff was that there was a custom appertaining to the muafis granted by the zemindars by virtue of which the muafi holders or their descendants had no right to transfer the muafi by sale. The plaintiff questioned the right of the son and grandsons of Sirh Mal to transfer the grove, and he sued for the cancellation of the sale and for possession of the grove by the ejectment of the muafidars and their transferees.2. The plaintiff relied in support of the custom on the wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1872...
Basawan Dube Vs. Anpurna Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All509; 95Ind.Cas.46
Sulaiman, J.1. This purports to be a second appeal from an original order of the Munsif refusing to set aside the sale on the ground that the auction-purchaser had not deposited the balance of the purchase money within 15 days as required by Rule 85.2. In my opinion no second appeal lies at all. Under Order 21, Rule 86 the Court was not bound to order the property to be sold on default of payment. It; had a discretion to do so or not. The expression 'may, if the Court thinks fit,' has been substituted in place of the old word shall '. The Court therefore was perfectly justified in exercising its discretion in favour of the auction purchaser when it found that the delay was due to the fact that the civil Court itself was closed. Even if that discretion had been wrongly exercised, in my opinion, no appeal lay to the lower appellate Court, as no appeal from an order passed under Rule 86 is provided for.3. The judgment debtor had filed his appeal as an appeal under Section 47 which in my o...
Kanhaiya Lal Chaube Vs. Jangi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All527
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The parties are Chaubes, residing at Muttra By virtue of a registered award of arbitration, dated the 4th May 1910, the arbitrators made a partition of the joint property held by them and another branch of the family represented by Munni Lal and Krishna; and in order to equalize the lots of certain house properties to the present suit inter se, they directed that the defendant shall pay Rs. 1,400 as compensation to the plaintiff and that such payment shall be treated as a charge on a shop specified in the award, which was allotted to the defendant.2. The defendant did not pay the money he was directed to pay by the award, and the present suit was consequently filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of the same by the sale of the property charged. The Courts below have decreed the claim, and the question for determination in this appeal is whether the arbitrators were competent to declare a charge by the award on the shop allotted to the defendant. If they were compet...
Chhote Lal Vs. Bansidhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All653; 95Ind.Cas.998
Mukerji, J.1. This in an appeal by only one of many defendants in a suit for sale brought on foot of two mortgages, dated 8th March 1911, for the sale of the same property and under the following circumstances. The mortgagor Maqbul-ur-Rahman, who is Defendant 1 in the case, made the two mortgages aforesaid in favour of one Shadi Ram and five others. One of these creditors was one Lakhpat Rai whose name would again appear in the course of the judgment. The properties mortgaged were several including the village of Khajuri. The Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant 15, Cheddan Lal, obtained a mortgage from Maqbul-ur-Rahman for a sum of Rupees 4,000 on 16th February 1913. On foot of that mortgage they brought a suit for sale and obtained a decree. Cheddan Lal sold his share in the decree to Brij Bashi Lal, father of Plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs have paid off the mortgages of 1911 to the mortgagees and have obtained a receipt discharging the mortgages. The plaintiffs claim that having paid off ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›