Allahabad Court February 1927 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.
Lachmi NaraIn Achary Vs. Mitthu Bhagat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All467
Boys, J.1. This is a defendants's appeal in a suit praying for a decree for Rs. 638 against the defendant on the allegations that the defendant had wrongly obtained payment of Rs. 623-8-0 out of the surplus resulting from an auction sale in execution of a decree on a simple mortgage obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff. On behalf of joint family certain property was made the subject of a simple mortgage in favour of the present appellant, Lachmi Narain on the 9th of July 1903, for a sum of Rs. 550. This was followed by two similar subsequent mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee on the 26th of November 1906 and the 21st of December 1906, for a sum of Rs. 175 and Rs. 554 respectively.2. The mortgagee Lachmi Narain brought a suit for sale on his first mortgage of the 9th of July 1903, and brought the property to sale. It fetched Rs. 1,800. Only Rs. 1,176-8-0 was due on this first mortgage. There was therefore a surplus of Rs. 623-8-0 which, in ordinary circumstances, the m...
Kishori Lal Makundi Lal Vs. Jauhari Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.221
1. The plaintiff came into Court with very clear allegations that he had instructed the defendants, who were commission agents, to purchase certain castor seed on account of the plaintiff, that the defendants had as a result of the transaction made a secret profit of Rs. 1,100, with which they ought to have credited the plaintiff. He alleged that the defendants had actually sold the castor seed on the 7th of August, 1919, but he said further that, though he knew of the sale of the castor seed, he did not know that the defendants had made a secret profit out of that sale until the 14th of August, 1922, when in a suit brought by the defendants for money they alleged to be due to them from the plaintiff the defendants' munib gave evidence, and as a result of that evidence the plaintiff says it came to his knowledge that the defendants had made a secret profit. Both Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that, assuming Article 90 to be the appropriate Article of the Limitation....
Pandit Lachhmi NaraIn Achary Vs. Mitthu Bhagat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.505
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit praying for a decree for Rs. 638 against the defendant on the allegation that the defendant had wrongly obtained payment of Rs. 623-8-0 out of the surplus resulting from an auction-sale in execution of a decree on a simple mortgage obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff.2. On behalf of a joint family certain property was made the subject of a simple mortgage in favour of the present appellant, Lachmi Narain, on the 9th of July, 1903, for a sum of Rs. 550. This was followed by two similar subsequent mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee on the 26th of November, 1906, and the 21st of December, 1906, for sums of Rs. 175 and Rs. 554 respectively.3. The mortgagee Lachmi Narain brought a suit for sale on his first mortgage of the 9th of July 1903, and brought the property to sale. It fetched Rs. 1,800. Only Rs. 1,176-8-0 was due on this first mortgage. There was, therefore, a surplus of Rs. 623-8-0 which in ordinary circumstances the mor...
In Re: Nehal Chand, Kishori Lal of Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All397
Walsh, J.1. This is a case stated by the Commissioner of Income-Tax. Shortly stated the matter arises in this way: A certain firm, Nehal Chand, Kishori Lal of Cawnpore, carried on business as a joint Hindu family, and were doing so between June 1924 and June 1925, the relevant period on which their profits had to be based for the assessment under discussion, their practice being to keep their accounts from June to June. They purport to have effected partition on the 10th April 1926, by means of a deed in respect of which they ceased to carry on business as a joint Hindu family and constituted themselves a partnership with specified shares. Whatever legal effect that partition might have in other respects, it had no effect under the Income-Tax Act until the 12th June 1926, when the deed was registered. From that date they must be treated as a registered firm under the Act. The result of that transaction was that they ceased to carry on business as an undivided Hindu family and began to ...
Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Gobind Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All717; 101Ind.Cas.501
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration of their proprietary title in respect of 933 acres of land out of 50 acres in a certain khata. The plaintiffs based their title on the fact that previous to the year 1900 they were zamindars and had a share in two other khatas and also a corresponding share in this particular khata, which was a shamlat khata. They admitted that the defendants had purchased a fraction of their rights in the other khatas, but maintained that at the auction-sale there was no mention of a purchase of land or share in the shamlat khata. They also maintained that the defendants in 1914 had sued them as the lambardars for a share of profits in the shamlat khata in dispute and that in that case the revenue Court had decided against the defendants and that this decision of the revenue Court operated as res judicata in the present case. A third reason for their claim being allowed was t...
Jiwan Vs. Matrwa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All735; 101Ind.Cas.538
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. After the institution of the suit the vendees acquired shares in the village under two deeds of exchange and pleaded that they had thereby destroyed the plaintiff's right of preference. The plaintiff replied that those deeds of exchange were really fictitious. He instituted separate suits to pre-empt those deeds of exchange treating them as deeds of sale. It has been conceded before us that it has been finally held in these other suits that the deeds of exchange were not deeds of sale and were genuine. The lower appellate Court has accordingly held that the defendants-vendees, by virtue of these deeds of exchange, have become co-sharers on the same footing with the plaintiff and that under Section 20, Agra Pre-emption Act, the plaintiff has no preference. In our opinion the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge on this point is correct. Even apart from Section 20, it has been held by this Court in several case...
V.E. Smith Vs. Indian Textile Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All413; 101Ind.Cas.673
Boys, J.1. Plaintiff filed a suit in a Benares Court on the allegation that in pursuance of a conversation with Mr. Smith, Defendant No. 1, and on assurances given by him he had supplied certain goods to Mr. Smith and to the second defendant, Mr. Roche; that later Mr. Smith discharged all his own personal obligations in regard to the goods supplied to him but that the second defendant Mr. Roche had, while retaining some of the goods supplied to him, defaulted in regard to the payment therefor. The plaintiff, therefore, sued both the defendants and obtained a decree against them both, against the second defendant as principal and against the first defendant as surety. Mr. Smith is a resident of Ceylon and, for the purposes of British India, admittedly a foreigner. He has also no property, in this country, He filed a written statement in which he challenged the allegations of fact so far as they concerned him. He also demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court alleging that the Court had ...
Jugal Kishore Vs. Chari and Co. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All451; 101Ind.Cas.643
Mears, C.J.1. Lala Jugal Kishore, son of Lala Har Chand Rai, was the original proprietor of a firm Bundelkhand Cycle and Motor Agency, at Jhansi, and Messrs. Chari & Co., Limited, is a firm carrying on business in Calcutta. Mr. Naidu was the manager-in-charge at Lalitpur.2. The case made by the plaintiffs was that they had delivered goods to the first defendant through the agent of the first defendant Mr. Naidu of a total value of Rs. 12,731-12-0. A written statement was filed challenging the liability of the defendants especially in relation to a large item of Rs. 11,336 alleging that the receipt relied upon by the plaintiffs was forgery inasmuch as the figure '1' had been added in front of the '1,000' changing there the apparent liability from Rs. 1,336 to Rs. 11.336. After a great deal of delay there came a moment when the Vakil for Mr. Naidu put forward to the Court a letter signed by Sant Lal dated 15th August 1922. Now 15th of August 1922 was the date on which Mr. Naidu had ackno...
Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Abdul Wahid Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All435; 101Ind.Cas.691
Walsh, J.1. We think that this appeal fails. We agree with the view taken by the learned Judge. There seems to have been a good deal of discussion at different times about the date of the case of action and therefore the plea; of limitation for these suits for-loss or damage incurred by reason of the failure of a party to the contract to carry out his undertaking to pay money to a third person. From one point of view the present appeal is unarguable. Mr. Narain Prasad Asihana says that no time was fixed for payment, therefore no time ever arose for the performance of the obligation, therefore there could be no breach until the person who had undertaken to pay, was called upon to do so, either by the person with whom he had consented to pay, or by the person whom he ought to have paid; It would be sufficient intimation creating a breach when the person to whom the money has to be paid, sues the original, debtors, namely, in this case, the plaintiff. We hold unhesitatingly that where no ...
Bombay Baroda and Central India Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. Siyaji Mills Co., Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All514; 101Ind.Cas.698
1. This is an appeal by the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company from the decree of the lower appellate Court granting the plaintiffs' claim for damages. It appears that two consignments of cloth were despatched from Baroda for delivery at Cawnpore. Both the consignor and the consignee were the same person, the Siyaji Mills Co., Ltd. The Siyaji Mills Co. have got managing agents, Seth Chumman Lal Motilal whose proprietor is Chumman Lal. The suit was instituted by the Siyaji Mills Co. Ltd., but the plaint was actually signed and verified by one Jivanram Motiram holding a special and general power-of-attorney from the proprietor Chumman Lal. Various defences were raised on behalf of the Company denying its liability. Both the Courts below have decided all the pleas raised by the defendant against the latter and have decreed the claim.2. The first point is urged is that the plaint was not properly signed inasmuch as Chumman Lal had no authority to delegate his power to Jivanram, his agent. It is n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »