Allahabad Court May 1929 Judgments
(Lal) Behari Lal Vs. Allahabad Bank, Ltd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All664
1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants, L. Behari Lal, against the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, awarding to the plaintiff-respondent, the Allahabad. Bank, Ltd., the balance due on a (promissory note. It is admitted that this promissory note for Rs. 25,000, dated 5th February 1923, was executed both by the defendant-appellant, L Behari Lal, and by the other defendant Jagan Nath. Subsequently to the execution of this promissory note, Jagan Nath paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the Bank on 2nd August 1923, and after that date he disappeared; and on the application of the appellant insolvency proceedings were taken against Jagan Nath. The appellant has made a number of payments to the Bank subsequently, and the present suit was instituted after these payments had been made by the appellant.2. The chief point argued before us on behalf of the appellant is that his liability was only that of a surety and not of a principal. If this proposition were conceded, i...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Karimunnissa Bibi Vs. Mira Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All809
Boys, J.1. The plaintiff sued on an allegation that her right of privacy had been infringed by certain constructions which the defendant had made. The trial Court gave a decree. The lower appellate Court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It was admitted (I take this fact from the judgment) that there is 'a custom of privacy' in the locality in dispute. How this admission came to be made or what was supposed to be admitted, I do not know. It is manifest that in a particular locality some of the inhabitants may be in the habit of keeping parda. It is equally manifest that the fact that some persons in a locality keep parda cannot possibly be meant that all the persons within those local limits and at all places are entitled not to have their privacy infringed. A great deal of loose talk has followed from an abuse of certain statements made in the 40 years old decision in Gokul Prasad v. Radho [1888] 10 All. 358. But for the purposes of the present case, I am prepared to take it, that t...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Behari Lal Vs. the Allahabad Bank Ltd. Cawnpore and Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-31-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.602
1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants, L. Behari Lal, against the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, awarding to the plaintiff-respondent, the Allahabad Bank, Ltd., the balance due on a promissory-note. It is admitted that this promissory note for Rs. 25,000, dated the 5th of February, 1923, was executed both by the defendant-appellant, L. Behari Lal, and by the other defendant Jagan Nath. Subsequently to the execution of this promissory-note, Jagan Nath paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the Bank on the 2nd of August, 1923, and after that date he disappeared; and on the application of the appellant insolvency proceedings were taken against Jagan Nath. The appellant has made a number of payments to the Bank subsequently, and the present suit was instituted after these payments had been made by the appellant.2. The chief point argued before us on behalf of the appellant is that his liability was only that of a surety and not of a principal. If this proposition w...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kishan Pandey Vs. Ghana Nand Joshi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All721a; 122Ind.Cas.598
1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to the Kumaun Division, of 1894, under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff alleged that he had entrusted two bearer drafts to the defendant for the latter to hand over on behalf of the plaintiff to the brother of the plaintiff, and that the defendant had cashed one of the draft himself and appropriated the money. Article 48, Lim. Act, has been applied by the Commissioner of Kumaun. The date stated by the plaintiff as that on which the defendant cashed the draft was prior to three years before the date of suit. But the plaintiff further alleged in his plaint that he did not obtain definite knowledge that the defendant had misappropriated the money until a date within the three years on which the defendant told him that he had cashed one of the drafts but refused to pay the money.3. In his written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff had come to the place where the defendant was on the date of t...
Tag this Judgment!Balkishen Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All280
Pullan, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh requesting this Court to set aside an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 250, Criminal P.C., directing a certain complainant to pay compensation to the accused. It is not suggested that the order was otherwise improper, but merely that it was without jurisdiction. The case before the Magistrate was under, Sections 463 and 323, I.P.C. both being within the Magistrate's jurisdiction and prima facie he was entitled to pass the order in question. The learned Sessions Judge bases his reference on the assumption that if there was any offence it was one under Section 467, I.P.C. and exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. But it has been found by both Courts that there was no offence, and the Judgment appears to me to have gone too far when he assumes that if the offence had been committed it would have been one under Section 467, I.P.C. We have to consider whether the Magistrate was trying the case or mer...
Tag this Judgment!Surjan Kunwari Vs. Shantanand Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All905a; 118Ind.Cas.191
1. The earlier history of this case is complicated in its facts, but the matter that we have to decide is really comparatively simple. The appeal arises out of an application for execution. Mahant Shantanand obtained a decree against Mahant Basudevanand. Basudevanand appealed and when he applied for stay of execution, stay was granted upon the furnishing of security bonds to the amount of Rs. 10,000 and security furnished by Rani Surjan Kunwari (who was not a party to the suit) in the shape of two fixed deposit receipts for Rs. 10,000 each. Mahant Shantanand has now applied for attachment of these two fixed deposit receipts and asked that out of the proceeds he should be paid some eight separate items. Of these items six arise out of the decree itself, and the Subordinate Judge has accepted them. A seventh item was for future mesne profits with the interest arising therefrom. The Subordinate Judge has not allowed these two items on the ground that no future mesne profits were decreed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Piare Lal and ors. Vs. Jhabba Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All668; 122Ind.Cas.602
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for profits under Section 164 of the old Tenancy Act brought against the lambardar. Three plaintiffs sued in the one suit, and it is immaterial whether their shares were equal or unequal. The question was raised whether the three plaintiffs could join their separate claims for relief in one suit. They relied primarily upon Order 1, Rule 1. Both Courts have repelled their contention and have dismissed the suit. The only question then that we have to decide is, whether or no, by the provisions of Order 1, Rule 1, the three plaintiffs were entitled to join together in the one suit. Order 1, Rule 1, declares thatall persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs in whom any right to relief... arising out of the same act... is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, where if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.2. It is not necessary to consider the other phrases...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Singh Vs. Manglu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All703; 122Ind.Cas.657
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of property transferred under a sale-deed dated 3rd August 1925. The suit was instituted on 1st July 1926. During the pendency of the suit the Vendees obtained a share in the village from the vendor Sukhdeo under a deed which was ostensibly one of gift and was dated 3rd September 1926. A second suit for pre-emption was instituted to pre-empt the gifted property on the allegation that the transaction was really one of sale. The connected appeal arises out of that suit.2. The first Court found that the ostensible gift was a colourable transaction, but at the same time it decreed the claim for pre-emption. The appellate Court has found that the gift was a transaction of gift and was neither fictitious nor was it a transaction of sale. We are bound by the finding of fact of the lower appellate Court. It has dismissed the suit on the ground that the vendee had become a cosharer on the same footing as the plaintiff by virt...
Tag this Judgment!L. Hudson Vs. Official Liquidator of Dehra Dun Mossoorie Electric Tram ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All826; 121Ind.Cas.693
1. This an appeal from the decision of Mukerji, J. who, on 26th February 1929, ordered Mr. Hudson and Mr. Dignasse, member of the late firm of Mrs. Neison Dignasse & Co., to pay the sum of Rs. 89,812-8-0 to the Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun Electric Tramway Co. in liquidation.2. The proceedings were under Section 235, Companies Act, 1913.3. Before proceeding to consider the five charges which were discussed before us we must give a brief outline of the disastrous history of this Company. It was registered on 23rd August 1921, and obtained permission to commence business on 21st October 1921. It was formed to acquire a concession from Mr. Beltie Shah to construct an electric tramway. It was proposed to issue 22 lacs of preference and 28 lacs of ordinary shares. Mr. Beltie Shah became the Managing Agent invested with such wide powers as the drawing of cheques on the Company's behalf. By 26th March 1926, the undertaking was in an insolvent condition and a compulsory winding up ord...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das and ors. Vs. Zamurrad HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All676
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit by plaintiffs to have certain windows and doors made by the defendants closed. The plaintiffs and defendants owned houses on the opposite sides of a street. It has been found to be at its maximum in the neighbourhood of the houses 17 feet in width. The locality is the town of Debai in the district of Bulandshahr. The plaintiffs' house faced towards the east, the defendants' towards the west. The plaintiffs had a two storied house, on the first floor, i.e., upper storey, of which the women folk of the house are said to, at any rate occasionally, spend their time. The defendants' house was originally a single-storied house but some three or four years ago they proceeded to rebuild it, and a few months before suit they proceeded to add to it a second storey. It was the plaintiffs' case that prior to the addition of this second storey there had been screen walls on the roof of the defendants' house and that as a result no one from the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »