Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All735
Ryves and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these-:The plaintiff (respondent), who is a commercial traveller, went to Cawnpore, in September, 1918, and put up as a guest at the Civil and Military Hotel, Cawnpore, which was owned by the defendant (appellant). While staying in the hotel, he alleged that a suit-case of his, containing valuables to something over Rs. 3,000 in value was stolen from the room he occupied, while he was at dinner in another part of the building. He claimed to recover the value of the stolen goods from the defendant on the ground that the loss was due to the neglect of the defendant in keeping the premises in an unsafe condition. The defendant (appellant), among other pleas, pleaded that if the theft was committed, it was due to the fault or connivance of the plaintiff's own servant and that the defendant was not liable, and that the defendant had kept proper care and had taken proper steps to provide for the security of traveller...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 68Ind.Cas.679
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these:---The plaintiff (respondent) who is a commercial traveller, went to Cawnpore, in September 1918, and put up as a guest at the Civil and Military Hotel, Cawnpore, which was owned by the defendant-appellant. While staying in the hotel, he alleged that a suit-case of his, containing valuables to something over Rs. 3,000 in value, was stolen front the room he occupied while he was at dinner in another part of the building. He claimed to recover the value of the goods stolen from the defendant on the ground that the loss was due to the neglect of the defendant in keeping the premises in an unsafe condition. The defendant (appellant), among other pleas, pleaded that if the theft was committed, it was due to the fault or connivance of the plaintiff's own servant and that the defendant was, not liable, and that the defendant had kept proper care and had taken proper steps to provide for the security of travellers staying in the hotel, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1922)ILR44All743
Piggott and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This appeal represents a further stage in certain execution proceedings which have been once already before this Court, vide the case of Muhammad Hafiz v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1920) I.L.R. All. 152. The appellant now before us, Sheikh Badr-ud-din Khan Bahadur, is one of the two sureties who bound themselves for the satisfaction of a certain decree. One of the points taken in appeal before us is as to the interpretation of the security bond and the nature of the obligations thereby undertaken by the sureties. We do not say, for a moment, that Sheikh Badr-ud-din Khan Bahadur, who was not a party to the appeal before the Court in the reported case referred to, is not entitled to be heard on this point; but, having heard him, we are still of opinion, that the terms of the security bond were rightly interpreted by this Court when delivering the aforesaid judgment. The result is that one of the obligations, jointly and severally as sumed by the two sureties, was the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1922All504; (1922)ILR44All745
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a reference from the Court of the District Judge of Ajmer Merwara, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, No. IV of 1869. The petitioner is Alfred A. Garlinge, described as a guard in the employment of the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway. The respondent is his wife, Irene Rebecca Garlinge, and the co-respondent is Joseph William Prior, employed in the Locomotive shops at Ajmer.2. The fact that the petitioner and the respondent were married on the 16th day of May, 1910, and the further fact that one child was born of the marriage, a daughter, in the month of December, 1910, are admitted. The said daughter is still living and is referred to by the name of Dorothy in the evidence.3. In the third paragraph of the petition it is alleged in general terms that soon after the marriage the respondent began to misconduct herself and continued in her evil conduct in spite of repeated promises to reform. A general allegation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All22; 68Ind.Cas.981
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods.2. On the 28th August, 1918, the plaintiff purchased sertain bales of cloth at Bombay which his commission agents made over to the G. I. P. Railway for transmission to Chunar, which is on the E.I. Railway line, and duly obtained a Railway receipt for it. The goods, however, never reached Chunar. Hence the claim.3. Both the Railway Companies pleaded the bar of limitation, and both tried to throw the responsibility on the other. The G. I. P. Railway Company asserted that the goods were handed over to the E. I. Railway, at Manikpur junction, while the E. I. Railway Company denied having received the goods at all. At the trial no dispute was raised as to the amount of damages claimed, nor was any issue Struck on the point4. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff has not yet received the goods and has suffered loss; and further that the plea raised by the E.I. Railway Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1923)ILR45All43
Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages for non-delivery of goods.2. On the 28th of August, 1918, the plaintiff purchased certain bales of cloth at Bombay, which his commission agents made over to the G.I.P. Railway for transmission to Chunar, which is on the E.I. Railway line, and duly obtained a Railway receipt for it. The goods, however, never reached Chunar. Hence the claim.3. Both the Railway companies pleaded the bar of limitation, and both tried to throw the responsibility on the other. The Gr. I. P. Railway Company asserted that the goods were handed over to the E.I. Railway, at Manikpur junction, while the E.I. Railway Company denied having received the goods at all. . At the trial no dispute was raised as to the amount of damages claimed, nor was any issue struck on the point.4. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff has not yet received the goods and has suffered loss; and further that the plea raised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All277; 83Ind.Cas.509
1. In this case the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun had before him eight persons charged with complicity in a riot, under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and some of them further charged with particular offences alleged to have been committed either in the course of the riot, or as a part of the transactions immediately leading up to the riot. Thus Gayan Singh was charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, with the murder of one Jora. Dewan Singh was charged under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, with causing simple hurt by means of a dangerous weapon to one Kutta, while another accused whose name is also is Kutta was charged with causing grievous hurt to one Chaitu, the charge being under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The remaining five persons on their trial, namely, Udai Singh, Kadaru, Bali, Nain Singh and Kangalu, were charged only in respect of the riot. We have been through the evidence in the case and we may say at once that we have received the greatest possible assistance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All394; (1923)ILR45All369
Lindsay, Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether an auction-purchaser under a decree which has been, after confirmation of the sale, set aside as the result of a separate suit, can recover his purchase-money from the decree-holder. If the answer is in the affirmative, as we think it must be, there is a subsidiary question as to whether his remedy is by application under Section 47 or 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by a separate suit.2. The appellant Bindeshri Prasad is the auction-purchaser. The decree under which the sale was held was a, decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage executed in favour of the respondents by one Debi Saran Dhar. Debi Saran Dhaj formed a. joint family with his minor grandson Ram Bujharat. The respondents brought a suit for sale on the basis of their mortgage in the year 1917 impleading Debi Saran Dhar and Ram Bujharat. In this suit they obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the 1st of June, 1917. The decr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1924All157; 75Ind.Cas.777
Daniels, J.1. These two connected appeals raise a question whether a Municipal Board has power, under Section 267 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, to order the removal of a lat ine for the construction of which it bad previously given permision. The plaintiff's latrine is of the kind known as sandas. It originally opened or the east side of the house and was cleaned from that side. In January 1919 he applied for permission to re-construct it so that it should open on the south side of the house. This application was made under Section 178 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and permission was granted by the Public Works Committee on 15th February 1919. The proposed alterations were thereupon carried out. About eight months afterwards, a complaint was made to the Municipal Board that the latrine, as altered, gave forth a very unsavoury smell and constituted a public nuisance and a danger to the health of the persons living in the neighbourhood. The Board were satisfied after inspection by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1924)ILR46All447
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J., Lindsay and Ryves, JJ.1. Atma Ram was convicted by the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act (Act No. III of 1867) as amended by Act No. I of 1917 of the Local Legislature and sentenced to pay a fine. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. He then filed a revision in this Court on the ground that the conviction was untenable having regard to two recent decisions of this Court which will be referred to hereafter. The case has been referred to a Full Bench. The order of reference is as follows: 'Having regard to the very singular form in which 'common gaming house' has been defined and to the decisions in Lachhi Ram v. King-Emperor (1922) 20 A.L.J. 218 and Emperor v. Durga Prasad (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 258, I think it desirable to appoint a Full Bench to consider whether on a-fair construction of the words 'used for the profit or gain of the person owning', the acts done by Atma Ram are suffici...
Tag this Judgment!