Allahabad Court December 1969 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.
Kashi Ram Vs. Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All228
Oldfield and Tyrrell, JJ.1. This suit was instituted on the 27th July 1885, to recover a sum of Rs. 679-14, due on a mortgage-bond of the 15th August 1876.2. The Courts below have decreed the claim, and the question in appeal is how far the defendant is liable for interest on the principal sum.3. The principal sum lent was Rs. 99, with compound interest at 2 per cent, per mensem, and we are of opinion that, under the circumstances, compound interest should not be allowed. We understand that the defendant was being pressed in the tahsili for immediate payment of revenue due, and advantage was taken of this circumstance to induce him to execute the bond, charging compound interest at the high rate of Rs. 24 per cent, per annum, notwithstanding that ample security was given by mortgage of landed property for the small sum advanced. Moreover, under the terms of the bond, the plaintiff had power to enforce the bond at any time by bringing to sale the mortgaged property. Instead of doing so,...
Barkat-un-nissa Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1900)ILR22All214
Knox and Blair, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad on the 29th July 1899, refusing to appoint a receiver to certain property, the subject of a suit before him. The ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge bases his refusal is that in suits like this one before him, there is no rule for the appointment of a receiver, and injunctions only are deemed sufficient. He adds that there is no reasonable cause for the appointment of a receiver. Now as to the circumstances of the case. The respondent Maulvi Abdul Aziz is a person who in a prior suit had claimed a declaration from thi mCourt that one Nurul Haq, munsarim of certain waqf property--the property now in suit--had been dismissed from his office of munsarim, that he, Maulvi Abdul Aziz, had been appointed as manager in Nurul Haq's place, and that being so, the mutawalli, Musammat Barkat-un-nissa, had no right to remove bim, the said Abdul Aziz, from the managership. The suit brought by ...
Queen-empress Vs. Kellie
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1895)ILR17All153
Aikman, J.1. The case for the petitioner has been well argued by Mr. Ross Alston. The main ground relied on by the earned Counsel for the petitioner is that a conviction for criminal breach of trust on a general balance of account is bad in law.2. In support of this he referred to Reg. v. Lloyd Jones 8 C. and p. 5488. In that case Aldbbson, B., observed: 'It is not sufficient to prove at the trial a general deficiency in account. Some specific sum must be proved to be embezzled, in like manner as in larceny some particular article must be proved to have been stolen.' The cases of Reg. v. Chapman 119 and K., 119, and Reg. v. Wolstenholme 11 Cox. Or. Ca. 313, were also relied upon.3. The propriety of these rulings has been doubted even in England. With reference to the ruling in Reg. v. Lloyd Jones, the following remarks are made in Roscoe's Criminal Evidence, 10th edition, page 477: 'When a person is employed in the receipt and payment of money, it is almost impossible to prove anything...
Queen Vs. Naiada
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All43
1. When the Indian Penal Code was originally drawn, it was in the contemplation of the framers of the measure that no sentence of transportation should be passed for a less period than life, and the Bill was so prepared. When the Bill was before the Council, Section 59 was introduced, which enacts that in every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, the Court may, in lieu of awarding a sentence of imprisonment, sentence the offender to transportation, for a term no less than seven years, and not exceeding the term for which by the Code such offender is liable to imprisonment. No alteration appears to have been made in the language of the several sections which prescribed transportation as a punishment. Thus, in the majority of instances, the words used are as follows:--'shall be punished with 'transportation for life or with imprisonment which may extend, &c.;' While the Court has an option in determining the duration of the term...
Husaini Begam Vs. the Collector of Muzaffarnagar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1887)ILR9All11
Tyrrell, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that this appeal is barred by limitation. It is true that it has been preferred a long time after due date, but our power of admitting an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is large, and is not fettered by considerations of time provided only the Court be satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting her appeal within the period prescribed therefor. I think that such cause has been shown by the learned vakil for the appellant. She is a pardah-nashin Muhammadan lady, obviously too impecunious to pay the preliminary charges for this appeal, who, having failed under the bar of limitation only in an attempt to appeal as a pauper, spent a considerable time in efforts to obtain a review of that order, and having finally been refused this remedy, she borrowed funds, at an enormous sacrifice we are informed, and affixed the necessary stamps (Rs. 655) to the memorandum of appeal sh...
Ram Prasad Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1880)ILR2All641
Straight, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent, to recover the sum of Rs. 4,765, principal and interest, on the basis of an accountbook. The plaintiff carries on business at Cawnpore under the style of Nand Ram and Babu Ram, while the defendants trade at Shikohahad as Nand Ram and Golab Chand. As far back as the year 1869 there were dealings between the plaintiff and defendants, the latter forwarding goods for sale to Cawnpore, drawing on the plaintiff against such goods, and occasionally making purchases through him for the purposes of their business at Shikohabad. On the 9th of October 1875, Mohan Lal, one of the defendants, was at Cawnpore, and upon that day the accounts between the two firms were gone into and a balance was struct, the amount ascertained as being due from the defendants to. the plaintiff being Rs. 4,198-4-9. Upon a promise of Mohan Lal to pay Rs. 3,598-4-9 of thjs amount within two weeks the plaintiff undertook to forego the other Rs. 600, whic...
Chunia and anr. Vs. Ram Dial and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1875)ILR1All360
1. It is contended by the respondents that the Court is bound by the provisions of Section 12 of the Court Fees Act and cannot determine whether this suit is one in which specific relief is sought or not, so as to determine under what class of cases it falls for the purpose of the Court Fees Act. We observe, and it has been so held in the Calcutta Court see Ganga Monee Chowdhrain v. Gopal Chunder Roy 19 W.R. 214 that Section 12 of the Court Fees Act prohibits appeals on questions 'relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee.' There is no question of valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee raised in the appeal before us, for if the appellant is right in his contention, a special and certain fee is fixed for all suits of the nature of the present suit, and no question of valuation arises. We therefore overrule the objection and entertain the appeal.2. It appears to us that the appellant correctly contends he seeks a declaration of right a...
Raghubans Kunwar and anr. Vs. Bhagwant Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1899)ILR21All183
Banerji and Aikman, JJ.1. The plaintiff respondent, who claimed to be the widow of Rao Partab Singh, brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for a declaration of her right to maintenance out of the estate of the deceased, and for recovery of Rs. 10,480 as arrears of maintenance, and Rs. 7,016-6-6 as interest on those arrears. She prayed that her maintenance should be declared to be a charge upon the estate of Rao Partab Singh, which at the time of the suit was in the possession of the defendants appellants, who are the daughters of his adopted son, Rao Maharaj Singh. The plaint alleged that the plaintiff obtained her maintenance from Rao Maharaj Singh, and after him from his widow, up to 8th July 1883; that subsequently to that date the payment of her maintenance was stopped by Raja Ghansham Singh, who was appointed guardian of the minor daughters of Maharaj Singh and manager of the estate, and that in 1893 her right of maintenance was denied.2. The suit was defended upo...
Sheoratan Kunwari Vs. Ram Pargash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1896)ILR18All227
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 14 of Act No. XX of 1863, in the Court of the District Judge of Gorakhpur. The object, of the suit was to remove certain persons from the office of trustees of a temple, to have certain assignments and incumbrances created by the trustees for the time being and affecting lands the subject of the endowment of the temple set aside and declared invalid as against the temple and the trusts, and to obtain the appointment of a new trustee or trustees. There was also a prayer to have an award declared as inoperative and not binding on the trust property. The plaintiff is the successor in title of the Maharaja of Bettia who had endowed the temple at Chauria with in the Gorakhpur district with certain lands, which were situated beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of the District Court of Gorakhpur and are in fact in lower Bengal.2. The allegations upon which the suit was brought were, if substantiated, allegations of mis...
Khushalo Vs. Muhammad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1969
Reported in: (1888)ILR10All223
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. I do not see how two respondents with divergent interests can both remain upon the record, or how in that case the Court's decree could be executed.2. Then I say that Khushalo's name should be struck out. Under Section 587 of the Code the provisions of Section 582 apply to this appeal. By reason of Section 582, Chapter XXI, applies to the ease and also Sections 28 and 32. These sections show that the parties are in a different position in appeal from that which they occupied in the original suit, and that for the purposes of substitution of parties the defendants-appellants should be treated as plaintiffs. If I am wrong, then Section 367 applies, and the Court may either now itself determine who is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or stay proceedings until the fact has been determined in another suit.Mahmood, J.3. Why should you implead any one as respondent? Does not Narain Das v. Lajja Ram I. L. R., 7 All., 693, decide that if you do not do so...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »