Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
PHILLIPS, SESHAGIRI AIYAR, JJ.
Jasti Ganiraju, minor, by his father and guardian Jasti Ramayya & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sri Damera Narasimha Apparayanim Garu - Respondent
Decided On : 20-12-1915
JUDGMENT
1. The plea of the appellant in the Court below was that he did not sign the muchilika for Fasli 1318, on which the suit is brought. It is found by the District Judge that the defendant executed a muchilika in Fasli 1317 at the rate claimed in the plaint and that in the subsequent fasli a similar muchilika was executed by him. The defendant did not raise the question of want of consideration for the contract he entered into in Fasli 1318. It is therefore, unnecessary to decide in these appeals whether there was valid consideration for the muchilika or not. We must dismiss these second appeals with costs.
Judgment in the Memoranda of Objections.
2. The lower Appellate Court is wrong in fixing the Vakil's fee in each of the appeals at one rupee. Rule 33, Clause (c), of the Rules of the High Court, Appellate Side, fixes the minimum Vakil's fee in each appeal at Rs. 20. Consequently the lower Appellate Court had no power, if it gave costs in each case, to reduce that fee. The proper course to be followed in cases where a number of appeals are heard together involving the same point of law and not requiring separate argument is pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Grieb's case, In re Metropolitan Coal Consumers' Association 45 Ch. D. 606 : 59 L.J. Ch. 532 : 62 L.T. 561 : 38 W.R. 462. In accordance with the suggestion contained in that judgment, in modification of the decree of the Court below, we direct that in the first three appeals the appellant (plaintiff) be granted costs at the usual rate prescribed in Rule 33. In the other appeals each party will bear his own costs. We make no order as to costs on the memoranda of objections.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
