Allahabad Court February 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.
Rohan Lal Vs. Collector of Etah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All525; 117Ind.Cas.612
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken for acquisition of land in the district of Etah. The area acquired is small and the learned District-Judge has found that the total market value of the land is Rs. 1,600. The zamindar of the land, which was in the possession of occupancy tenants, when it was acquired was the only contesting, party before the District Judge. The tenants were given a small amount of money as compensation and they did not choose to contest the Collector's award.2. The learned District Judge, having, found that Rs. 1,600 was the market value of the acquired plot proceeded to find out what would be the fair share for the zamindar's interest. He found that the tenant paid a rent of Rs. 8-13 per annum to the landlord and the landlord paid Rs. 3 as the land revenue. The learned Judge, accordingly, found that Rs. 5-13 a year or roughly Rs. 6 was the zamindar's income from the property. The patwari stated before the learned Judge that a subtenant of the occupancy te...
Shiva Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All819
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces under Section 66, Income-tax Act of 1922.2. The facts as they appear from the statement of the case made by the learned Commissioner and from the several appendices attached to the statement appear to be as follows: There was a joint family business owned by several members of the family, the head office of which was in Calcutta. The income-tax for the entire business was paid at Calcutta by the head office firm carrying on business under the name and style of Sital Prasad Kharag Prasad. The members of the family decided to separate, as and from the date 9th October 1921. The date of separation having been fixed by mutual agreement, the actual partition of the effects of the family was made over to two gentlemen, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Babu Baldeo Ram Dave. These gentleman made an award on 30th November 1925. The said award made a rule of the Court on 26th February 1926. It was therefore on 2...
In Re: Shiva Pershad Gupta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.467
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax, United Provinces, under Section 66, Income Tax Act of 1922.2. The facts as they appear from the statement of the case made by the learned Commissioner and from the several appendices attached to the statement appear to be as follows: There was joint family business owned by several members of the family, the head office of which was in Calcutta. The income-tax for the entire business was paid at Calcutta by the head office firm carrying on business under the name and style of Sital Prasad Kharag Prasad. The members of the family decided to separate, as and from the date 9th October, 1921. The date of separation having been fixed by mutual agreement, the actual partition of the effects of the family was made over to two gentlemen, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Babu Baldeo Bam Dave. These gentlemen made an award on 30th of November, 1925. The said award was made a rule of the Court on 26th February, 1926. It was, ther...
Musammat Rafiq-un-nisa Bibi and Vs. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.738
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 359, principal and interest on foot of a mortgage-deed, dated the 20th June, 1922. This mortgage-deed was a deed by which Musammat Rafiq-un-nissa, defendant No. 1 had mortgaged her mortgagee rights. The plaintiff, therefore, sues on what is known as a sub-mortgage. Musammat Rafiq-un-nissa had become mortgagee under a mortgage executed on 4th April, 1915, by one Abdul Razzaq. The plaintiff asks to recover his money by sale, if necessary, of the actual property and not merely by sale of the mortgagee rights. In his plaint he has indicated that he desires a decree in form No. 9 of Appendix (d), of the First Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code, that form being made a statutory form imposed by Order XLVIII, Rule 3, which provides that the form given in the appendices shall be used for the purposes therein mentioned. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit. The objecti...
Jaideo Singh and anr. Vs. Munshi Dhum Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.740
Ashworth, J.1. These four appeals arise out of two suits brought by Jaideo Singh and Kunj Behari against Dhum Singh and others for partition of a certain house in Bareilly. It is common ground that the two plaintiffs are the grandson and son respectively of one Bahadur Singh, who was the uncle of one Dilsukh Rai. It is also common ground that the house in question was at one time the joint property of Champat Rai and Dilsukh Rai, although it was a question whether Dilsukh Rai represented himself alone or the whole branch of the family to which he belonged. The suit was resisted by members of Dilsukh Rai's branch and others, but one of them Nityanand, the son of Dilsukh Rai, admitted the claim for partition, provided that he was given his father's share in the house, which he said was one-half. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the District Judge found that although the plaintiffs' branch of the family or a single member of that branch had been joint with Champat Rai as owners...
Kallu Vs. Ganesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All348
Ashworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for redemption of certain mortgaged property. The Courts below have held that the property was first mortgaged by one Bhawanidin to Kallu on 7th November 1890 for Rs. 90 a provision of the mortgage being that the mortgagor should repair the house. A second mortgage was made by Jokhu, Bhawani's son, in favour of Mt. Batul, wife of Kallu. This was dated 1st July 1901. Part of the mortgage money was assigned for the redemption of the mortgage and Rs. 58 for cost of repairs during the previous eleven years. The Courts have found that Kallu was in effect the mortgagee under the second deed, and consequently that second deed must be deemed to cancel the first deed and amount to a fresh mortgage in favour of Kallu. This finding has been objected to in grounds 3 and 4 of the memorandum of appeal, but these grounds are not pressed by the appellant's counsel. Consequently we are only concerned with the deed of 19...
Natho and anr. Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All399
1. On 22nd July 1927, Nathu and Sarju were appellants in a case fixed to come on before the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Nathu and Sarju were both present and they had engaged a pleader, B. Mulchand. At the moment when the case was called on, B. Mulchand, in the ordinary course of his profession, was then arguing a case in the Munsif's Court near by. According to the affidavit of the appellants, Sarju went across to the Munsif's Court to call his pleader, and when the pleader returned after some 10 or 12 minutes the appeal had been struck off. An application to restore it was heard and disposed of adversely to Nathu and Sarju on 27th August 1927, and the Judge's order is as follows:The appellants had gone to call their pleader when the appeal was called on for hearing on 22nd July 1927. It was their duty to attend in time or to engage a pleader who could attend in time. This view is supported by Majid-un-nissa Bibi v. Ammessa [1914] 24 I.C. 826.2. We think the Judge has taken much...
Kalika Prasad Vs. Ajudhia Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All421; 121Ind.Cas.211
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit on a mortgage, the plaintiff mortgagee asking for his money or for foreclosure. The mortgage has, however, under circumstances which will have to be set forth, been held to be a simple mortgage and this fact wilt have an important bearing on the applicability of the Full Bench decision to which reference will have to be made later. The history of the proceedings, which is important for the purposes of the present appeal, is as follows:2. In 1903-(Local) Act 2 of 1903, the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act, was passed. By Section 1(3) it was declared that the Act should come into force on a date to be declared by notification.3. 1st July 1903-By notification the Act came into force on this date.4. 27th July 1912-Date of the mortgage in suit. On this date Ajudhya Prasad, defendant-respondent, executed a mortgage in favour of Kalika Prasad, the plaintiff-appellant, for Rs. 160. It provided for interest at Rs. 1-4-0 per mensem pay...
Masitullah and anr. Vs. Umrao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All414
Sen, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for partition of a dwelling house which is situate in mohalla Jatan in the city of Bijnore. The house originally belonged to an undivided Hindu family and was owned by different members of the family in unequal shares and who occupied different portions of the house property. Mt. Kallo, plaintiff 2 purchased a one-sixth share of the house from Ghasi and instituted a suit for partition against the defendants. This was suit No. 1196 of 1922. The defendants did not claim the benefit of Section 4, Partition Act (Act 4 of 1893).2. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have purchased the shares of two other members of the family namely Tula and Umrao. The extent of their share in the entire house is two-fifth. The present suit was instituted for the partition of this share. The defendants claimed the benefit of Section 4, Partition Act. The learned Munsif in a well reasoned judgment came to the conclusion that the defendants were entitled to the ...
Babu Paras Ram Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All498
1. These four connected appeals arise out of four separate suits for pre-emption. On 18th March 1925, Mt. Rajkali Kunwar sold 2 pies share in. 10 villages to three vendees Raj Kumar, Paras Ram and Ram Raj Singh for Rs. 500 without any specification of shares. The suits were decreed by the first Court on the ground that Ram Raj was a stranger, and the plaintiffs had therefore a right to pre-empt the property against all the vendees. The learned District Judge has allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. His judgment is based on the findings that Raj Kumar is a recorded co-sharer, that Paras Ram although not recorded is the brother of Kagji who is a recorded cosharer and with whom he forms a joint Hindu family, and that Ram Raj is an ex-proprietary tenant in this mahal though not in the villages in which the shares are situated.2. It is not disputed before us that Raj Kumar is a recorded cosharer. We must also accept the finding of the Court below that Paras Ram being joint with his ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »