Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-25-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All236; 108Ind.Cas.694
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant before this Court is one of the six defendants in the Court below. The plaintiffs' case was this. They, with defendant 6, Ram Gopal, constituted a firm of commission agents carrying on business under the name and style of Ram Gopal Pearey Lal, at Bareilly. Defendants 1 to 5 (the 5th being the appellant here) were a firm of dealers in grain under the name and style of Har Charan Lal Peare Lal. Before the defendant firm started business with the plaintiffs and Ram Gopal, there was a firm, Kanthi Ram Banwari Lal, owned by the first two defendants, who were residents of Budhaun. The firm of Kanthi Ram Banwari Lal employed the plaintiffs as commission agents. Later on, defendants 3 to 5 joined the aforesaid defendants 1 and 2 and constituted themselves into the firm of Har Charan Lal Peare Lal, as is stated above, in order to carry on business at Bareilly. The plaintiffs were employed as commission agents and it was agreed that if and when occasion arose, the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-27-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Mad830
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. These two second appeals have arisen from a suit and a cross-suit relating to the same piece of land. Second appeal No. 446 of 1925 is from a suit which was instituted for possession by the purchaser of property from a person who had become a major after his majority. Second appeal No. 445 of 1925 is from a suit for specific performance of a contract for execution of a conveyance in respect of the suit property on the ground that the contract for the sale thereof had been entered into on behalf of defendant 1 by defendant 2 as his guardian. No question has been raised before us as regards the power of defendant 2 to act as guardian of the minor. The question has been considerably narrowed down before us by the very fair manner in which both the learned gentlemen have stated the case and the point that arises for decision. It is simply this: whether the guardian of a Hindu minor can enter into a contract on his behalf so as to bind the minor in such a manner as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-08-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Mad854
Madhavan, Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the cancellations of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants 3 to 5 by defendant 10 as a member of the temple committee of Uttankarai taluk.2. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple in the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants 1 and 2 having a turn of one-and-a-half years and the other pujaris having a of turn of two years by rotation The turn of defendants 1 and 2 ended on 26th January 1916, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by defendant 10 suspending them from office, defendants 1 and 2 obstructed them from entering the temple and exercising their functions. Amongst other things, the plaintiffs contended that the temp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-08-1928
Reported in : 110Ind.Cas.702
Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaiatiffs for the cancellation of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by the 10th defendant as a member of the Temple Committee of Uttankarai Taluk.The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple ia the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having a turn of one and a half years and the other pujaris having a turn of two years by rotation. The turn of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 ended on the 26th January, 1915, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants Noa. 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by the 10th defendant suspending, them from office, defendants Nos, 1 and 2 Obstructed them from entering the temple and exercising their functions. Amongst other things, the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1928
Reported in : (1928)55MLJ798
Phillips, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows:Has the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1919 power to revise orders passed by the Board of Revenue under Chapter XI or Section 205 of the Estates Land Act?2. It is admitted that the petitions in which this reference has been made relate only to Section 205 of the Estates Land Act and not to Chapter XI of the same. So far, therefore, as orders passed under the latter are concerned, the question is one of academic importance but it will probably be necessary to deal with it in considering the other portion of the reference. Although this reference deals only with orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Estates Land Act, a great deal of the argument has been directed to the power of revision passed by the High Court in proceedings generally under the Act, for it is only in three report...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1928
Reported in : 114Ind.Cas.161
OPINIONWilliam Watkins Phillips, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows:Has the High Court in the exercise of its re visional jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1919 power to revise orders passed by the Board of Revenue, under Chap. XI or Section 205 of the Estates Land Act?2. It is admitted that the petitions in which this reference has been made relate only to Section 205 of the Estates Land Act and not to Chap. XI of the same. So far, therefore, as orders passed under the latter are concerned, the question is one of academic importance but it will probably be necessary to deal with it in considering the other portion of the reference. Although this reference deals only with orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Estates Land Act, a great deal of the argument has been directed to the power of revision possessed by the High Court in proceedings generally under the Act, for it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-17-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Cal885,116Ind.Cas.731
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a decision of my learned brother Mr. Mitter, J., sitting in second appeal. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the present appellant for rent. The position is this. The plaintiff is a raiyat who, for a holding of two plots, pay a rental of Rs. 9-8-0. He has let one of those two plots to the defendant-appellant who is an under raiyat and he has left that at a rent of Rs. 32-0-0 per annum. The tenant-defendant's contention is that, under Section 48, Ben. Ten. Act, the plaintiff cannot recover the rent at the rate claimed. Ha says that, although there has been let to him only a part of the plaintiff's holding, nevertheless the plaintiff cannot, under Section 48, Ben. Ten. Act, recover more than the total rent which he pays for his total holding plus 50 per cent, on that. In other words, the defendant's, contention is that Rs. 14-4-0 is the maximum amount which the plaintiff can claim from him. That contention has been negatived...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-03-1928
Reported in : AIR1928All641
Boys, J.1. This case has been referred to this Fall Bench for determination of certain questions relating to the law governing 'family arrangements'. On the death of one Nathua in the first quarter of the year 1924, an application for mutation was made by Ramgopal, the present plaintiff-appellant, a first cousin of Nathua. On 31st March 1924 objections were filed by Tulshi Ram, Munshi Lal and Duli Chand, grandsons of Ramgopal's great-uncles. Their objection took the form of an allegation that Ramgopal's father had been adopted into another branch of the family and Ramgopal had, therefore, lost all right to succeed to Nathua's property. On 24th April 1924 Ramgopal and the three objectors, by a joint application, stated that they had arrived at a compromise and asked for mutation to be made in Ramgopal's name as to 1/3rd, in the names of Tulshi Ram and Munshi Lal as to 1/3rd, and in the name of Duli Chand as to the remaining 1/3rd, and on 3rd May 1924, order was made accordingly. On 6th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-17-1928
Reported in : AIR1928Cal640
Rankin, C.J.1. This is a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on 30th April 1928 should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on 14th January 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October 1920 and that after an appeal to the District Court asecond appeal was filed in this High Court by the present applicants on 4th October 1926. Under certain rules of this Court it was laid before Mallik, J. for disposal on or about 4th April 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumstances it is plain enough that the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-17-1928
Reported in : 113Ind.Cas.49
George Claus Rankin, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause why a certain memorandum of appeal presented to this Court on the 30th April, 1928, should not be accepted and registered. The question raised is whether or not the applicants have a right of appeal from the decision of a single Judge sitting in second appeal in the absence of a certificate from him that the case is a fit one for appeal. This question arises upon the new Letters Patent which came into effect on the 14th January, 1928.2. The facts are that the suit was instituted on 7th October, 1920, and that after an appeal to the District Court a second appeal was filed in the High Court by the present applicants on 4th October, 1926. Under certain ruled of this Court it was laid before Mr. Justice Mallik for disposal on or about the 4th April, 1928, and on that date the appeal was dismissed, the learned Judge refusing to declare that the case was a fit one for a further appeal.3. In these circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!