Allahabad Court May 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.
Musammat Bhagwati Devi Vs. Sanker Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.649
1. This is an application in- revision under Section 115, C. P. C., against an order amending a decree on the ground that the learned Judge acted without jurisdiction. The ground is based on the fact that the decree amended had been the subject of appeal to this Court, which appeal was dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 11. There is direct authority-in two cases of this Court that under such circumstances it is only the final Appellate Court which can amend the decree. I refer to the Full Bench case of Muhammad Sulaiman: Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan 11 A. 267 : A.W.N. (1889) 55 : 13 Ind. 7ur. 427 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N. S.) 598. which, was. Followed in Asma Bibi v. Ahmad Husain 30 A. 290 : A.W.N. (1908) 109 : 5 A.L.J. 584. In view of these rulings the learned District Judge bad no jurisdiction to amend the decree. It has been pressed on me that the opposite party ought to have raised this question of jurisdiction before the District Judge and did not do so and I have been pressed to refrain from i...
Firm Sundar Lal Kapoor Chand Vs. Firm Bawan Prasad Kamta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.694
Daniels, J. 1. These revisions arise oat of two Small Cause Court suits between the same parties. The applicants are a firm at Agra and the opposite party a firm at Allahabad. Both suits arise out of a contract for the sale of certain sleepers by the Allahabad firm to the Agra firm. The Agra firm refused to take delivery of the sleepers on certain grounds, and they were eventually sold at a less price with the consent of both parties to a third person. The Agra firm had paid a sum of Rs. 200 as earnest money in respect of the purchase. They instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court at Agra for the return of this Rs. 200 and for Rs. 250 damages. This suit was dismissed by the Small Cause Court on a finding that the original contract had been cancelled with the consent of both parties and that no many was payable to either party in respects of it. Before this decision the Allah-Dai firm had filed a suit in the Small Came Court at Allahabad claiming damages for breach of contract. No app...
G.i.P. Railway Vs. Mahadeo Ram Badridas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All585
Daniels, J.1. The substantial ground taken in these two revisions is that the Court below has failed to apply the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point appears to me perfectly clear. The admitted facts are that the suit was instituted against the G.I.P. Railway while it was a private company. During the pendency of the suit the line was taken over by Government and the Secretary of State for India in Council was substituted as defendant. The applicant urges that notice should have been given to the Secretary of State under Section 80. That section requires two months' notice to be given before a suit is instituted against the Secretary of State. Here there was no question of instituting the suit. The suit was already instituted. The matter is one of devolution of a right during the pendency of a suit and is governed by Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code. That rule lays down that in the case of an assignment or devolution of any interest during the pendency of sui...
G.i.P. Railway Through Agent Vs. Firm Mahadev Ram-badri Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.351
Daniels, J.1. The substantial ground taken in these two revisions is that the Court below has failed to apply the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C. The point appears to me perfectly clear. The admitted facts are that the suit was instituted against the G.I.P. Railway while it was a private Company. During the pendency of the suit the line was taken over by Government and the Secretary of State for India in Council was substituted as defendant. The applicant urges that notice should have been given to the Secretary of State under Section 80. That section requires two months' notice to be given before a suit is instituted against the Secretary of State Here there was no question of instituting the suit. The suit was already instituted. The matter is one of devolution of a right during the pendency of a suit and is governed by Order XXII, Rule 10 of the Code. That rule lays down that in the case of an assignment of devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit ma...
Pandit Ajodhia Nath Ojha Vs. Bisheshar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.857
Daniels, J.1. This dispute relates to a claim by the plaintiff zemindar to the price of certain trees in the defendant's grove which the defendant has sold. The value of the subject-matter is only Rs. 49, but the plaintiff avoided the operation of Section 102, C. P. C., by adding in his plaint a prayer for an injunction. It is established that the trees were not cut down by the defendant but that they fell down owing to a big flood which took place in this part of the Gorakhpur District. There are two wajib-ul-araiz in the village. The Wajib-ul-arz of 1833 merely affirms the right of tenants to groves and trees planted by them. The Wajib-ul-arz of 1860 contains, a special clause to this effect.2. 'A tenant has no power to sell and cut a tree without the permission of the owner of the soil.' The question is whether this applies to a tree which has fallen down owing to natural causes. In my opinion the Court below was right in construing it as referring to the cutting down of a standing ...
Mohamed Fida HusaIn Khan Vs. Hazari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.717
Ash worth, J.1. No one appears for the respondents in this appeal. It is, therefore, heard ex parte.2. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for resumption of a rent-free grant on the ground that the grant was a conditional one and that the grantees had broken the condition. The defence was that the grant was not a conditional one, and that even if it was, the condition had not yet been broken. The first Court found that the wajib-ul-arz recorded as follows:---'The rent of this land has been excused from of old, and no services are required. For the future, also the land shall continue to be rent-free, but the muafidar shall not have the power to sell or mortgage.'3. This it held to amount to record that the grant was a conditional one. On the strength of the evidence, therefore, it held that the grant was a conditional one. It also held that the mortgage-deed having been completed and consideration paid, breach of the condition had occurred. There ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›