Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 155Ind.Cas.86
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court reversing the decree of the lower Appellate Court.2. It appears that one Inayat Khan and his three brothers were entitled to 5-6th share in a village, the remaining l-6th belonged to a lady. Instead of mortgaging his l-4th out of the 5-6th, Inayat Khan made a mortgage of 1-4th share in the village to the present plaintiffs. This came to about 17 bighas odd and the remaining l-4th of l-6th came to about 2 bighas. Subsequently a sale-deed was taken from the lady in the names of the sons of Inayat Khan and their wives whose names were entered in the revenue papers. The defendants, in execution of a money decree against the sons and their wives, got 1-4th of l-6th share belonging to the lady attached and put up for sale, and they purchased it themselves. Now, the plaintiffs have brought this suit for sale on the basis of their mortgage-deed and wish to enforce the security against the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Cyprus affirming the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia at the trial. The appellants, defendants in the action, are the Ottoman Bank of Nicosia, and the respondent, the plaintiff, is a former official of the bank. Prior to his retirement on 31st December 1931 the respondent was serving in the Larnaca branch in Cyprus and the one question which survives for determination upon the present appeal is whether the pension to which, in accordance with the terms of his employment, he then became entitled is, as both Courts in Cyprus have held, a pension payable in Turkish gold pounds translated into Cyprus currency at the exchange of the day, or whether, as the appellant bank contends, it is due only in pounds of Turkish currency or, whether so or not is in Cyprus payable only in the currency of the Island at the fixed rate of exchange of 100 Cyprus for 110 Turkish pounds arid that whether the salary pounds be g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad581; 153Ind.Cas.111
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 50 said to be the advance sent by him to the defendant firm with respect to certain goods ordered by him. The plaintiff's case is that he had given orders to the defendant firm not to send the goods per V.P.P. but that in as much as the defendant sent the goods per V.P.P. in contravention of his order, he refused to receive the goods and that he is now en-titled to the refund of the Rs. 50 advanced by him. The other contention raised by the plaintiff need not be referred to for purposes of this Revision Petition. The defendant denied having received any intimation from the plaintiff before they sent the goods that the goods were not to be sent by V.P.P. The defendant also contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the cause of action arose at Madras and not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, namely, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1934All271; 147Ind.Cas.443
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause-Court Judge. The first ground sets forth thatthe suit is based on an alleged promissory note which contains no promise to pay or anything else which would constitute it a pro-note. 2. There is nothing whatever in the reoord to support the allegations in this ground. The suit was not based on an alleged promissory note. Learned Counsel examined the plaint with the desire to prove his allegation, but the plaint does not support the allegation; on the contrary the plaint sets forth in para. 2 that according to the desire of the defendant the plaintiff paid the defendant, Rs. 500, and the defendant signed a stamped paper, and the plaint as amended states that this paper was to be used as a memorandum of the transaction, and further the plaint sets forth that the defendant orally said that he would get the money from his house and pay it back to the plaintiff.3. The plaint therefore was based not on any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad316; (1934)66MLJ471
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application to this Court to exercise its power under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make a complaint in respect of the alleged fabrication of a certain document. In A.S. No. 18 of 1928 a settlement deed, Exhibit B, figured as having been executed by one Govindaswami Naidu. The document bore the alleged signature of Govindaswami in seven places and it appeared to have been attested by five persons and to have been written by a sixth person. The suit out of which the appeal arose was to enforce registration of this document and the plaintiff (now 1st respondent) was Govindaswami's second wife and a substantial beneficiary under the settlement deed, much to the prejudice of the first wife who was the 1st defendant in the suit. Proceedings had taken place before the District Registrar, who had refused to register this document on the ground that its genuineness was not established. The trial Court passed a decree directing that the settlem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal87,150Ind.Cas.398
1. The facts of the case may be stated quite shortly. Three brothers, Rajendra, Debendra and Gobendra, lived in commensality as members of a joint family. They had G P. notes of the face value of Rs. 33,000 as part of their joint family properties. Gobendra held the post of Dewan under the Burdwan Raj. In 1305 (1898) he put in as securities with the Raj for his service G. P. notes of the face value of Rs. 20,000 out of the aforesaid securities. In 1309 (1902) the brothers separated in mess. In 1311 (1905) they had a partition of their properties and as a result thereof, so far as the G.P. notes are concerned, they were divided into three shares. G.P. notes of the face value of Rupees 11,000 going to each of the two brothers, Debendra and Gobendra, and to the sons of Rajendra who had by that time died. Rajendra's sons got the notes that were with the family, but Debendra could not do so as the notes of his share formed a part of the security which Gobendra had lodged with the Burdwan Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal148,150Ind.Cas.89
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for refund of money paid by him for the purchase of property, and which purchase could not be, and was not, completed by the defendant and of which possession could not be delivered, for the reason that the property became non-existent, must be allowed. The defendant was not either under law or equity entitled to retain the money paid by the plaintiff for purchase of property, without taking any step for completing the sale, and for putting the plaintiff in possession of the property sold.2. There is nothing contained in the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, which militates against a sale held Under Section 361 of that Act being completed under the law, and the possession of the property being given to the purchaser, from whom purchase money has been received by the Municipality. The sale not having been completed in the case before us, and possession not having been delivered, the plaintiff was entitled to get refund of the purchase money with damag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal414
Mitter, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs, now respondents, for declaration of their right and title to hold possession on the basis of their purchase in execution of a decree on the original side of the High Court of the properties-mentioned in Ka, Kha and Gha Schedules to the plaint after setting aside' an order of the first Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca passed under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C., on 16th February 1927. The plaintiffs further-prayed that they may be put in possession of all the properties except pro-perty No. 4 of Ka Schedule of which they were in possession at the date of the plaint and in case they were dispossessed pending suit they prayed for recovery of possession of the said property also. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 4. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca has decreed the suit on contest against defendants 1 and 4 and ex parte against defendants 2 and 3, by declaring plaintiff's title to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All642; 147Ind.Cas.529
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The defendants, second party, a firm styled Mithu Lal Gopal Dass purchased 1153 bags of wheat, 9 bags of arher and 4 bags of gram on different dates between 14th June and 9th July 1924 through the agency of the defendants, first party, a firm styled Gobind Ram Brij Lal, and carrying on business as commission agents. These goods were sold by the firm of Mithu Lal. The trial Court has found that in respect of this transaction, a sum of Rs. 1,771-13-6 remained due to the firm of Mithu Lal Gopal Dass from the firm Gobind Ram Brij Lal. This finding of the learned Subordinate Judge has been accepted by both the parties in this Court. Between the 5th of July and 15th of September 1924, the firm of Mithu Lal purchased 887 bags of wheat on the various dates through the agency of the firm of Gobind Ram Brij Lal. The dispute between the parties is mainly confined to this second transaction. Mithu La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All417
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. These two revisions have arisen out of a Small Cause Court Suit No. 5247 of 1930 instituted by Mr. Nihal Chand Shastri against two defendants, Masood Ahmad Khan and Dilawar Khan alias Dilawar for recovery of Rs. 340. The plaintiff's case was_ that defendant 2, Dilawar had a criminal case against him in a Magistrate's Court at Muzaffarnagar, where the plaintiff was then practising as an advocate of the High Court. Masood Ahmad Khan was the plaintiff's clerk. Dilawar Khan wanted the plaintiff to go to Allahabad and to file an application for transfer of the criminal case from Muzaffarnagar and agreed to pay Rs. 50 a day for the period during which the plaintiff would be away from Muzaffarnagar. As Dilawar Khan had no money to pay down, Masood Ahmad Khan, the plaintiff's clerk stood surety for him. The plaintiff carried out his part of the contract, but was not paid. The plaintiff accordingly brought the suit. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court decreed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!