Skip to content


Oochi and anr. Vs. Ulfat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All234
AppellantOochi and anr.
RespondentUlfat and ors.
Excerpt:
.....established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - it is not against public policy that such a contract should be entered into, and we know no reason in law which would make such a contract bad......that the plaintiffs should collect and receive offerings during certain months; that during those months the defendants should refrain from receiving any offerings, and that in certain other months the defendants should collect and receive the offerings and the plaintiffs should refrain from collecting offerings. the first court dismissed the suit on the ground that such a suit would not lie. the second court set aside the decree of the first court, and made an order of remand under section 582 of the code of civil procedure. from that order of remand this appeal has been brought.2. in the course of the argument we have been referred to doorqa parshad v. budree 6 n.w.p. h.c. rep. 189; lata v. guneshee s.d.a. n.w.p. s.c. vol. 2 p. 448; durga prasad v. genda weekly notes 1889 p. 169;.....
Judgment:

John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. The plaintiffs sued the defendants to recover money and offerings received by the defendants in breach of an agreement between the parties. The parties were Maha-brahmans, and it is alleged that an agreement had been come to between the predecessors of the parties, the effect of which now, as applied to the present parties, is that the plaintiffs should collect and receive offerings during certain months; that during those months the defendants should refrain from receiving any offerings, and that in certain other months the defendants should collect and receive the offerings and the plaintiffs should refrain from collecting offerings. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that such a suit would not lie. The second Court set aside the decree of the first Court, and made an order of remand under Section 582 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From that order of remand this appeal has been brought.

2. In the course of the argument we have been referred to Doorqa Parshad v. Budree 6 N.W.P. H.C. Rep. 189; Lata v. Guneshee S.D.A. N.W.P. S.C. Vol. 2 p. 448; Durga Prasad v. Genda Weekly Notes 1889 p. 169; Jhummun Pandey v. Dinoo Nath Pandey 6 W.R. 171; Har Lall v. Jeorakhun Lall S.D.A. N.W.P. 1862 p. 314; Deonath v. Mussumat Guneyshee S.D.A. N.W.P. 1860 p. 78; Bindhu lal v. Sampat Misr Weekly Notes 1883 p. 163; and Muddun Mohan Ghossal v. Nuboram Ghuckerbutty 2 W.R. C.R. 69.

3. Few of these authorities have any bearing on this case. The decisions in Others of them, so far as they would apply here, were obiter. This suit is based on an alleged contract, which of course must be proved. For present purposes, and those only, we assume that the alleged contract can be proved. It is not against public policy that such a contract should be entered into, and we know no reason in law which would make such a contract bad. The cause of action would apparently be for damages for breach of the contract. The measure of these damages probably would be the amount proved to have been received by the defendants in breach of the contract. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //