Allahabad Court November 1929 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sheikh Chamru Vs. Bhaggan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All219
1. This is a reference by the learned Munsiff of Allahabad asking for the opinion of this Court as to whether he or the revenue Court should try the suit.2. It appears, on the facts found both by the revenue Court and the civil Court, that, initially, there was an occupancy holding belonging to the parties to the present reference and consisting of four plots of land. Two of these plots, 1275 and 1276, are still under cultivation. Two other plots, which are much smaller in area, are no longer under cultivation, and on a portion of one of these plots, namely, 966, the opposite party, Sheikh Bhaggan, has built a small house. The plaintiff (Sheikh) Chamru) wanted that plots Nos. 996 and 967 (now not cultivated) should be partitioned. Evidently he thinks that any vacant land that he may get he would be able to bring under cultivation. The suit was orginally intsituted in the revenue Court. Sheikh Bhaggan took the plea inter alia that the suit was not cognizable by the revenue Court. His gr...
People's Industrial Bank, Ltd. Vs. Ram Chander Shukul and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All503
Mukerji, J.1. This second appeal raises some interesting questions of law and arises out of the following circumstances. The People's Industrial Bank went into liquidation some time ago and it is being wound up under the supervision of the Court. The District Judge of Allahabad is the Court under whose supervision it is being wound up at present. An order to pay a certain amount was passed by the learned Company Judge (learned District Judge) against two persons, namely Chandra Bali Shukla and a female, Mt. Annapurna, the wife of Chandra Bali Shukla. The order was sent down to Mirzapur for being executed. The sons of Chandra Bali Shukla instituted the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen to obtain a declaration that the order of the District Judge against Chandra Bali Shukla was not binding on them, inasmuch as Chandra Bali Shukla was already dead at the date of the order. The liquidator was a party to the suit and one of the objections that he took was that the leave of the...
The People's Industrial Bank Limited Vs. Ram Chander Shukla and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.28
1. This second appeal raises some interesting questions of law and arises out of the following circumstances. The Peoples' Industrial Bank went into liquidation sometime ago and it is being wound up under the supervision of the Court. The District Judge of Allahabad is the Court under whose supervision it is being wound up at present. An order to pay a certain amount was passed by the learned Company Judge (learned District Judge) against two persons, namely Chandra Bali Shukla and a female, Musammat Annapurna, the wife of Chandra Bali Shukla The order was sent down to Mirzapur for being executed. Then the sons ; of Chandra Bali Shukla instituted the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen, to obtain a declaration that the order of the District Judge against Chandra Bali Shukla was not binding on them, inasmuch as Chandra Bali Shukla was already dead at the date of the order. The liquidator was a party to the suit and one of the objections that he took was that the leave of the...
Sheo Murat Vs. Seth Jhabbu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.597
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on the sole ground that one Shiam Narain was a necessary party as a plaintiff and had not been joined as a plaintiff or defendant. The suit was brought by the plaintiff Sheo Murat alone on the allegation that he had made a contract with the defendant and had supplied bhusa to the defendant in pursuance of that contract. The defendant produced a written agreement which was accepted by the lower Appellate Court as the basis of the contract, and not only the plaintiff but also Shiam Narain were parties on one side in that agreement and the defendant was the contracting party on the other side. Accordingly the lower Appellate Court held that Shiam Narain being a necessary party the suit must fail Order I, Rule 9 states: 'No suit shall be defeated by rea-Bon of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties' and Section 99, Civil Procedure Code, is to the same effect. We consider that the decree of ...
Ram Sarup Vs. Mahomed Ubaidulla Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All123
Dalal, J.1. The view of law taken by the lower appellate Court is not correct. The final decree was passed on 29th June 1922. It was revived on 5th March 1925 under Section 20, Lim. Act. On 5th March 1925, the judgment-debtor sent a certain sum in payment of the debt, and the money order coupon which requested credit of this sum towards the debt was in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor. This writing amounts to the fact of the payment appearing in the handwriting of the person making the same. Where a part of the principal of a debt is before the expiration of the prescribed period paid by the debtor a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. Such a writing was considered to be a writing as required by Section 20, Lim. Act in Ram kumar Sewchand Roy v. Nanuram Poddar A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 510. A fresh period of limitation, therefore, would be computed from 5th March 1925. Subsequently a similar payment was made by the judgment-debtor on 30th O...
In Re: Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All389
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act of 1922.2. The assessee is the Tehri State. It appears that the State has grown timber within its territory, and annually, it arranges to sell the timber at two places in British India, namely, Hardwar in the United Provinces and Abdullahpur in the Punjab. The method of business is this: Annual auctions are held at Dehra Dun and certain prices are offered. These offers are communicated to the State capital, and there, on their acceptance, money is deposited by the purchasers, in the Imperial Bank of India, in its Dehra Dun branch. It also appears that, later on, the State appointed a certain gentleman, by the name of Pandit Ghananand, to carry on the sale of timber. He having died shortly after, a State official was appointed to carry on the business. This was Pandit Sadanand.3. The year on the basis of the income of which, income-tax is to be calculated is 1925-26. The tax is to be ...
Ram Sarup Vs. Mahammad Ubaidullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.22
Dalal, J.1. The view of law taken by the lower Appellate Court is not correct. The final decree was passed on 29th June, 1922, It was revived on 5th March, 1925, under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. On 5th March, 1925, the judgment-debtor sent a certain sum in payment of the debt, and the money order coupon which requested credit of this sum towards the debt was in the handwriting of the judgment-debtor. This writing amounts to the fact of the payment appearing in the handwriting of the person making the same. Where a part of the principal of a debt is before the expiration of the prescribed period paid by the debtor, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. Such a writing was considered to be a writing as required by Section 20 of the Limitation Act in Ramkumar Sewchand Roy v. Namiram Poddar 94 Ind. Cas. 657 : 53 C. 163 : A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 510. A fresh period of limitation, therefore, would be computed from 5th March, 1925. Subsequently...
Mahadeo Chaube and ors. Vs. Ram Raj Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All108; 122Ind.Cas.414
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for redemption of certain occupancy lands held by the defendants under a mortgage deed, dated 23rd April 1885, executed by Bhawani, who was the occupancy tenant. The appellants claim to be the collateral relatives of Bhawani, who died issueless and without leaving a widow or any heir nearer than the plaintiffs. It was pleaded in defence that the plaintiffs were not joint with Bhawani in cultivation of the holdings at any time before the mortgage, and being collateral heirs they could not, and did not, inherit the occupancy rights belonging to Bhawani. The Courts below have found concurrently in favour of the defendants. It must, therefore, be accepted as a fact that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Bhawani as regards his right of occupancy in the lands in suit. It is, however, urged on their behalf that the plaintiffs have been proved to be joint with Bhawani in the cultivation of anothe...
Chatur Prasad-bara Bacha and ors. Vs. Baijnath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All131
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the present appellants and one Debi Prasad, who was plaintiff 1 in the array of parties, for demolition of certain buildings made by the defendant-respondents. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance, but has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on appeal by the defendants.2. It appears that Debi Prasad died on 16th June 1927. The appeal was filed in the lower appellate Court on 20th June 1927, i.e., four days after the death of Debi Prasad. He was, however, shown as the first respondent. On 15th July 1927 an application was made by the defendants (appellants be ore the lower appellate Court) asking for permission to implead the legal representatives of Debi Prasad and for extension of time under Section 5, Lim. Act, on the ground that they were not aware of the fact of Debi Prasad's death when the appeal was filed. The lower appellate Court granted this application, being satisfied that the mistake in imp...
Jit Singh Vs. Daulatia Tamta and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All167
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Kumaun dismissing the application under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. of the applicant, who was judgment-debtor in the proceedings out of which the revision has arisen and whose property had been sold in execution of decree. He deposited the entire decretal amount together with 5 percent on the purchase money as compensation to the auction purchaser. The application, as it was drawn up, did not show the auction purchaser in the array of parties. It was not till after the expiry of 30 days allowed by law for an application under Order 21, Rule 89 being made that the auction purchaser was impleaded. The learned District Judge has held relying on Karamat Khan v. Mir Ali Ahmad [189l] A.W.N. 121 and Ali Gauhar v. Bansidhar [1893] 15 All. 407 that the application under Order 21, Rule 89, is barred by limitation. It is not necessary to discuss the question in detail as the latest case i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »