Allahabad Court February 1928 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.
Khairati Lal Baboo Lal Vs. B.B. and C.i. Ry.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All230; 113Ind.Cas.743
Walsh, J.1. This is an application in revision, or rather under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff claims for the loss of two bales of goods said to contain dhotis and other cloth goods. The weight of each bale is said to be roughly 4 maunds. The size, therefore, would be considerable, and each bale would require two or three men at the very outset to unship and carry if they used their hands only. These are fundamental and admitted facts in the case, which the learned Judge has overlooked. The goods were dispatched from Carnac Bridge, Bombay, to Agra Fort. The rights of the parties are governed by Risk-note H which, as everybody knows, is a new form recently introduced in the railway administration. It provides that the railway shall be held free from all responsibility for lossexcept upon proof that such loss arose from the misconduct of the railway administration's servants; provided that in the following cases: (hero we only quote the language appropriate to this cas...
MohsIn Raza Khan and ors. Vs. Haider Bakhsh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All368
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of the following circumstances: Two brothers, Ali Raza and Hasan Raza, agreed to divide their property. They had each of them incurred certain debts, and it was agreed between them that each should be responsible for discharging the debts incurred by him. The property allotted to Hasan Raza was subject to a mortgage created by Ali Raza, and this mortgage Ali Raza failed to discharge. Hasan Raza transferred his property by sale to Ismail, who paid off the mortgage and then proceeded to sue Ali Raza. In due course he got his decree in which was included half a chabutra. It may be as well to explain immediately here the nature of this chabutra. The northern portion of the chabutra was open to the air. On the southern portion there was a verandah. The chabutra was divided into half at the partition by a line running north and south. This left a portion of the open chabutra and a portion of the chabutra covered by the verandah to each of the...
Bhawani Prasad and ors. Vs. Jai Jai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All414; 114Ind.Cas.903
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal was argued before Banerji, J., on a point which need not now be considered by us. The reason is that on certain facts to be presently stated, the case can be decided on much simpler grounds, the result being the same at which this Court, in accordance with the Court of first appeal, arrived.2. The facts briefly are these: Salig Ram made a simple mortgage of zamindari property, which included his interest in the sir land in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court. This was in 1882. Subsequently, in 1899, Salig Ram made a usufructuary mortgage of his sir land in favour of one Bhupal. The plaintiff brought a suit, on the simple mortgage in his favour, in 1904, and made Bhupal a party to it. There was the usual decree for sale and ultimately, in 1905 the property of Salig Ram was put to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff himself. On the sale being hold Salig Ram became an ex'proprietary tenant of sir land. Bhupal by virtue of his being in...
Sheo Jangal Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All232; 113Ind.Cas.740
Dalal J.1. The question of law raised in these proceedings is of much interest. One Dharamdhuja was directed by a Magistrate under Section 118, Criminal P.C., to execute a bond with two sureties to be of good behaviour for a period of three years. The applicant, Sheo Jangal Prasad, was one of the sureties. The surety in such a case binds himself to forfeit a certain sum of money ( Rs. 1,500 in this case) in case of the person called upon to give the bond making default therein: see form No. 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code. What constitutes breach of the bond is laid down in Section 121, Criminal P.C. The provisions are that the commission or attempt to commit or the abetment of any offence punishable with imprisonment wherever it may be committed is a breach of the bond. The Magistrate took proceedings against Sheo Jangal under Section 514 and ordered the forfeiture of his surety bond. The Magistrate was of opinion that Dharamdhuja had committed murder. Dharamdhuja was never put on h...
Ram Partab Singh Vs. Chhotey Lal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All269
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif (East) of Allahabad under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act 3, 1926. It arises under the following circumstances:2. Ram Pratap Singh, plaintiff, brought a suit in the revenue Court for a declaration that he has got a one-fourth Share in the plot in dispute, i.e.,to the extent of 1 bigha 1 biswa, and that he along with the defendant is the principal tenant of the said plot,and for recovery of joint possession of the said plot. His case was that the plot formed part of an ancestral holding of the parties, and that by a private partition an area of 1 bigha 1 biswa in the plot in dispute was allotted to him, and that recently the defendant by ejecting the sub-tenant through the revenue Court had obtained possession over the entire plot and was denying the plaintiff's title to the share that was allotted to him by the partition between the ancestors of the parties.3. The allegations of the plaintiff were denied by the defendant and he asserted...
Bulaki Das and ors. Vs. Kesri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All363
Boys, J.1. This defendants' appeal arises out of a suit for possession instituted under the following circumstances, Kalidin executed a mortgage dated 13th June 1873, in favour of defendants 1 to 10, who later brought a suit on the basis of their mortgage, and brought some property to sale. A share was included in the sale which was not included in the mortgage or in the decree. The decree-holder himself purchased and obtained possession. The present suit was brought by the judgment-debtor to recover the excess sold,2. The trial Court gave the plaintiff's a decree, and the lower appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal. The defendants again appeal to this Court.3. It has been again contended for the appellants here, as it was in the. Courts below, that the suit is barred by Section 47, Civil P. C, by Order 21, Rule 92, Civil P.C., and by limitation. For the respondents, in addition to contesting that none of these pleas barred the suit, it has been further urged that the sale w...
Bulaqi Das and ors. Vs. Kesri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.725
1. This defendant's appeal arises put of a suit for possession instituted under the following circumstances: Kalidin executed a mortgage dated the 13th of June, 1873, in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 10, who later brought a suit on the basis of their mortgage, and brought some property to sale. A share was included in the sale which was not included in the mortgage or in the decree. The decree-holder himself purchased and obtained possession. The present suit was brought by the judgment-debtor to recover the excess sold.2. The trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree, and the lower Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal. The defendants again appeal to this Court.3. It has been again contended for the appellants here, as it was in the Courts below, that the suit is barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by Order XXI, Rule 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and by limitation. For the respondents, in addition to contesting that none of these pleas barred the s...
Sachitanand Tewari Vs. Radhapat Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All234
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the objectors arising out of an execution proceeding. It appears that a certain amount of money was due to the plaintiff decree-holder from defendant 1 on a sarkhat. Subsequently the debtor executed a deed of gift of his immovable property in favour of defendants 2 to 7. After this, in October 1924, the creditor brought a suit to recover the amount due on the sarkhat, in which he impleaded not only his original debtor but all the donees also. As there was no charge on any property he of course could not claim a decree for sale or any other consequential relief as regards any immovable property of the debtor. But the plaintiff in his plaint stated that defendant 1 had made a gift of all his property in favour of the other defendants on whom the debt was binding and who had therefore been impleaded. The relief which he actually claimed was that his claim should be decreed against the 'defendant'. All the defendants were absent and the Court held...
Anant Bharthi and anr. Vs. Sarup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All360a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages on the ground of a breach of contract to grant a lease. It is an admitted fact that there was a contract between the plaintiff's deceased father and the defendants, under which the defendants agreed to grant a lease of certain houses for a period of six years beginning with Asarh Badi, 2 Sambat 1975, corresponding with the 26th June 1918. In December 1917 this contract was complete and Rs. 2,000 were advanced under a receipt of that date. A regular qabuliat was executed and registered on 18th March 1918, and, under the terms contained in this document, the lease was to be for six years from the period above mentioned. As regards the payment of the lease money, it was provided that the whole amount should be paid within six years in this way: that Rs. 2,000 had been paid previously, Rs. 50 would be paid at the time of the execution of the qabuliat, Rs. 1,250 would be paid after one month from the d...
Mt. Parbati Vs. Sarup Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All313
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by Sardar Sarup Singh for damages for breach of a contract. Some of the facts are admitted and others are clearly proved. There was undoubtedly a contract, oral at first, between Mt. Parbati on the one hand and Sardar Tara Singh, the father of the plaintiff, on the other, under which it was agreed between the parties that Mt. Parbati would grant a lease of certain house property for six years on a certain rent. The lease money was to be payable in instalments and nearly half of it was to be paid at the very beginning. On 17th March 1918, Mt. Parbati executed a receipt for a sum of Rs. 3,300, acknowledging that she had received that amount on account of lease money in respect of the houses and the shops for the period mentioned. It was a disputed point in the Court below whether on that date she had only received Rs. 2,950 or had received the whole of Rs. 3,300. On the next day, viz: 18th March 1918, Sardar Tara S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »