Allahabad Court May 1926 Judgments
Mewa Ram Vs. Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All591
Sulaiman, J.1. The dispute relates to two ginning factories started under an agreement, dated the 10th November, 1902. According to the plaint, as originally filed, there were more than 20 shareholders in the factories from the very beginning and the partnership was invalid, though it was alleged that the shareholders had no knowledge of its invalidity. The main reliefs claimed were:(A) (1) For declaration that the partnership was invalid;(2) for a refund of the plaintiff's subscription out of the proceeds realized by an auction sale of the factories, or(3) for exclusion of the plaintiff from the partnership and a refund of his subscription in some other proper way.(B) In the alternative a division of the properties of the factories and, if proper, an auction sale of the property and an award to the plaintiff of a 1/8th share in their sale proceeds.2. Subsequently the plaintiff amended his plaint and added a clause that though the partnership was originally invalid it became valid in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Hadi HusaIn and ors. Vs. Nasir UddIn Haider and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All623; 97Ind.Cas.108
Walsh, J.1. In pursuance of an order made by a Bench of this Court on 14th May 1926, Abdul Hasan Jauhar and Mohammad Ismail appeared before us, a Bench constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, to show cause why either, or both of them, should not be committed to prison for contempt of Court, for that they wrote and caused to be published a pamphlet containing scandalous and defamatory matter concerning a Bench of this Court and the administration of justice in the High Court of these provinces.2. Both of them appeared to show cause in person. Abdul Hasan is able to speak and to understand the English language; Mohammad Ismail is not and in consequence of this the Court directed that the opening statement, and the passages in the pamphlet complained of, should be read to both respondents in Urdu, although the proceedings were conducted in English. Such questions as the Court thought right to put to both the respondents were interpreted to them in Urdu, in which language their answe...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All670
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal originally came before one of us and was referred to a Bench of two Judges having regard to the intricate nature of a question of law involved. The admitted facts are there that plaintiff's ancestor Pragi was a minor at the date 15th of April 1879. On behalf of him and one Bhairo, who was apparently Pragi's brother, their mother executed a document, which we have to interpret, dated the 15th of April 1879, in favour of the Respondent No. 1, Gauri Shankar, for a sum of Rs. 504-4-0. The document purported to be a deed of sale, but it contained a stipulation that if and when the executant handed over half the price, namely a sum of Rs. 252-2-0, to Gauri Shankar, he would return that portion of the property to the executant. There was a further stipulation that the executant of the deed would retain 16 bighas of land till half the property was returned to her on payment by her of Rs. 252-2-0.2. In the Court of the Munsif of Jhansi the successor-in-title of Pragi a...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Vs. Rai Saheb B. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.169
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The parties are neighbours and own adjoining houses. About the year 1899; the defendant began to build a wall and the plaintiff apprehended that by its construction it would block among other things a water spout on the second storey. He instituted a suit claiming an injunction restraining the defendant from blocking this water spout. It is unnecessary to refer to the other reliefs which were claimed in that suit. The suit resulted in a compromise dated the 5th of January, 1900, and it is really the ambiguity of this compromise which is the cause of the dispute on the present occasion. Under that compromise it was provided that the water spout of the rasoi khana (kitchen) should be continued as previously and that the defendant would not interfere with it in any way.2. Some years afterwards the plaintiff-decree holder began to use this rasoi khana as a room, where, in the words of the learned Munsif, 'water was...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kekri Press Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All649
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Kekri Press Co. Ltd., purporting to have been made under Section 12 of the Companies Act, praying for the confirmation of a resolution by which the Company proposed to locate its registered office at Aligarh instead of as, hitherto, at Beawar.2. At the last hearing of the application I entertained some doubt as to whether I could hear the application. I granted the learned Counsel a week's time. The matter has again been argued to-day. I am not satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.3. Under Section 12 of the Companies Act of 1913 the alteration of the place of the registered office cannot take place unless the resolution proposing the transfer has been confirmed by 'the Court.' 'The Court' is, according to the definition of the expression given in Section 2 of the Companies Act, the Court having jurisdiction under the Act. Under Section 3 the Court having jurisdiction is the High Court having jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Prasad and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All693; 97Ind.Cas.162
1. On the 1st of June 1908 Debi Das mortgaged his house to Durga Prasad for Rs. 200 with compound interest at Rs. 37-8 per annum with yearly rests. On the 23rd December 1915 Durga Prasad assigned his mortgage to Mohan Lal and Salig Ram, nephews of Debi Das, the mortgagor, for a consideration of Rs. 200 only although nothing had been paid on account of principal or interest up to date. On the 27th of August 1919 Debi Das sold the house to one Jwala Prasad for Rs. 500 leaving Rs. 200 with the latter for payment of the mortgagees. Four days later Jwala Prasad paid Rs. 200 to one of the mortgagees, namely, Salig Ram who gave a receipt for the same on account of the mortgage money and promised to return the mortgage-deed.2. The present; suit is brought by Mohan Lal to recover the mortgage money. It was pleaded that the mortgagees agreed to forego all the interest due on the mortgage money and that Salig Ram had accepted Rs. 200 in full discharge of the mortgage debt and that his receipt was...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All707; 97Ind.Cas.342
1. The defendant-appellant Mahadeo Prasad is the vendee of a house from a Hindu widow Mt. Tulsha. The sale to him was made with the consent of the nearest reversioner Lalai. The plaintiff sued as next reversioner after Lalai, who having consented to the sale deed is disqualified from suing. The only relief granted to him by the Court below is a declaration that the sale-deed will not be binding on the reversioners other than Lalai after Mt. Tulsha's death. The plaintiff's right to this relief was contested in both the Courts below on the ground that the sale was for legal necessity and with the consent of Lalai, the next presumptive reversioner. Both Courts have found that the sale was not for legal necessity. The defendant has pressed his appeal to this Court on two grounds:1. That the house was the sole property possessed by the deceased, and that the sale under the Privy Council ruling in Rangasami Goundan v. Nachiappa Goundan AIR 1918 PC 196 comes under the doctrine of surrender, a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhajan Lal Vs. Kedar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All733
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra, on the 9th of January 1926, by which be ordered a correction of a decree passed by himself. It appeals that the opposite party brought a suit for sale against two defendants, Bhajan Lal, a minor, and Trilokinath, also a minor, on foot of a mortgage-bond alleged to have been executed by the father of Triloki Nath who was a brother of Bhajan Lal. Both Triloki Nath and Bhajan Lal contested the suit. By order dated the 21st of August 1925,the 9th of September was fixed for final disposal of the case.2. On that date Bhajan Lal filed his written statement, issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The order-sheet establishes that on that; day the plaintiff stated that be would not enforce his claim against half the property belonging to Bhajan Lal. The Court accordingly, dismissed the suit against Bhajan Lal and exempted his half-share in the mortgaged property fr...
Tag this Judgment!Piarey Lal Vs. Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All730
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises under the following circumstances: The plaintiff. Pairey Lal, is the son of one Bhoj Raj. The latter had two houses. His brother, Mangal Sen, mortgaged a house that belonged to him to Mewa Ram on the 6th August 1904, The northern boundary of Mangal Sen's house was given in the deed as the houses of Bhoj Raj and Hatta Mal. In execution of a decree obtained by Mewa Ram on foot of this mortgage, Durga Das purchased the house. Bhoj Ram entered into a contract with Durga Das to transfer the house to him Eventually a suit was brought by Bhoj Raj for specific performance of the contract of sale, and he obtained a decree on the 2nd May 1905. In this decree the northern boundary of the house is shown as the house of Hatta Mal and Bhoj Raj.2. Bhoj Raj mortgaged the same house to Mewa Ram on the 16th January 1906 and in this mortgage the northern boundary of the house mortgaged is shown as the houses of Hatta Mal and Bhoj Raj. Mewa Ram obtaine...
Tag this Judgment!Bijai Saran Sahi and ors. Vs. Deo Kishen Prasad Bahadur Sahi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All734; 97Ind.Cas.102
1. Mahant Karya Bharthi was seeking to establish his title to Math Kanchanpur as against another claimant, and for the purpose of the litigation arising out of that claim, he borrowed money from Kamta Prasad Sahi, the predecessor of the plaintiffs and Sant Baksh Sahi, the predecessor of the defendants. On the 12th September 1899, he borrowed Rs. 8,000 by a simple bond for that amount from these two persons, and later on he executed another simple bond on the 27th March 1901, for a similar amount. Mahant Karya Bharthi succeeded in the trial Court in establishing his title to the math property against Raj Bans, the other claimant, but on appeal to this Court he was unsuccessful and his claim was dismissed. He applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council and during the pendency of that proceeding he executed a mortgage of the disputed property, including the two villages of Kanchanpur and Patkoli now in dispute, by conditional sale for Rs. 20,000 in favour of Sant Baksh Sahi, the cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »