Allahabad Court January 1932 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.
Nasarullah Vs. S. Wajid Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All362
Pullan, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the District Judge of Moradabad imposing a fine of Rs. 50 upon the applicant, Nasrullah, under Section 10, Mussalman Wakf Act (42 of 1923). The proceedings are the direct outcome of former proceedings which have been the subject of a reported ruling of this Court, Nasrullah Khan v. Wajid Ali : AIR1930All81 . My brother, Niamatullah, was a member of the Bench which decided that case. There the question was whether under Section 5, Act 42 of 1923, the District Judge could, on the intervention of other persons, call upon a muttawali to furnish accounts of a wakf and the view taken by the Bench was that the Act does not authorize the District Judge to pass an order that the muttawali should file a statement of accounts as contemplated by Section 5, and that the only procedure provided was to punish him under Section 10 of the same Act for not doing so. Accordingly, the same persons approached the District Judge and requested hi...
(Syed) Afzal HusaIn Vs. Mirza Mohammad Ahsan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All389; 140Ind.Cas.468
Pullan, J.1. Many points raised in this application have already been discussed by us in our judgment in Nasarullah v. Wajid Ali : AIR1932All362 . There are however two facts in particular which differentiate this case from the one decided by that judgment. In both the cases the District Judge fined persons described as mutawallis of the wakf under Section 10, Act 42 of 1923, but in the other case the mutawalli had himself filed accounts under Section 3 of the Act, and he was fined for failure to file further accounts under Section 5 of the Act. In the present case the person described as mutawalli has never admitted that the property which he manages is a wakf, and he has been fined for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. We have expressed the view in the former case that to come to a decision under Section 10, Musalman Wakf Act, it is necessary for a Court to decide whether the person who is alleged to be in default is or is not the mutawalli of a wakf with...
Puttoo Lal and ors. Vs. Munshi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All466; 140Ind.Cas.529
Mears, C.J.1. Munshi Lal and others had executed a mortgage bond in favour of Behari Lal, Puttoo Lal and four others on 20th January 1914. The bond provided that the debt was to be paid after seven years. On 25th May 1925, the mortgagees brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,359-8 0 in enforcement of their mortgage and obtained a decree on 21st July 1925. The mortgaged property was sold for Rs. 8,000 on 21st August 1929. This left a balance of Rs. 3,066-8-0 still due from the mortgagors.2. Behari Lal died on 4th April 1930. On 2nd July 1930, two applications were presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Parrukhabad : one by Puttoo Lal and four others, who were co-plaintiffs with Behari Lal, and the other by the widow of Behari Lal. The applicants prayed for substitution of names in place of the deceased Behari Lal. These applications were dismissed by the Court below ; hence this appeal. We are of opinion that where a Court rightly or wrongly comes to the conclusion that certa...
Mt. Ram Kunwar Vs. Amar Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All361
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff Mt. Rain Kunwar whose suit has been dismissed by the Court of first instance. She claimed to be in adverse possession of certain zamindari property and asked for the relief of a declaration that she was the owner of that property and that it was not attachable or saleable in execution of a decree No. 140 of 1924, held by defendant 1 against defendant 2, Bishambhar Singh. The following family tree is relevant:Kishan Singh|--------------------------------| |Tika Singh, died in 1908 Bakhtawar Singh= Mt. Ram Kunwar, = Mt. Qadam Kunwarplaintiff|Defendant 2Bishambhar Singh.2. Bishambhar Singh is the son of an earlier wife, of Tika Singh, and on the death of Tika Singh in 1908 there was a dispute in mutation proceedings for which there is the evidence of a witness Ajmer Singh, which, following the Court of first instance, we accept. This witness states that there was an agreement made during mutation proceedings by virtue of which the prope...
Kripa Ram Vs. Kunwar Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All256
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand. The plaintiff alleged that he had brought a suit against Sewa Ram and got certain sugar and treacle belonging to his debtor attached before judgment. The present defendant, Kripa Ram, filed an objection to the attachment of the sugar and treacle claiming them as his own property; but his objection was dismissed in April 192G and the plaiutiff's suit was decreed. Thereupon the present defendant filed another suit for a declaration of his title to the properties attached, but that suit failed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant obtained a stay order during the pendency of his declaratory suit, and in collusion with the cnstodian of the property, who had been appointed by the Court, and the judgment debtor he dishonestly removed the sugar, sold the same and misappropriated the sale proceeds. This misappropriation was alleged to have taken place in May or June 1926. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the criminal C...
Basant Lal Takhat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All451
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the facts involved are briefly as follows:There was a joint Hindu family which is now described as Seth Basant Rai Takhat Singh. The family owns certain immovable properties and they have been assessed for the payment of income-tax on the income thereof. The family claims a deduction of a certain amount of money on the ground that that amount was paid by them on account of interest on money borrowed. Their case further is that this money was borrowed on the security of certain title-deeds and the transaction constituted a mortgage on the property. They further said that the money had been borrowed in order to extend the property.2. The purpose for which the money may have been borrowed would be immaterial. The whole question is whether any charge was created on the property on the income of which the tax has been assessed.3. The question that has been formulated by the learned Commissioner is as follows:Whether the...
Mahommad Salimullah Khan Vs. Khalilurrahman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All526
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The question is whether a court-fee is chargeable upon a memorandum of objections filed under Order 41, Rule 26, Civil P.C. There is no express provision in the Act making such a document liable to the payment of a court-fee. The practice hitherto has been to levy a court-fee of Rs. 2 on such documents. It is suggested that this practice is justified under Article 1(d), Schedule 2, which makes an application or petition presented to a High Court chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. 2. The question is whether a memorandum of objections filed under Order 41, Rule 26, Civil P.C., should be held to be an application or petition presented to the High Court. In my opinion the answer is in the negative. The memorandum does not request the Court to take any action or to pass any order. Its object is to inform the Court and the opposite party that the objector challenges the finding of the Court below on certain points or ...
Basant Lal-thakat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR141(All)
. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the facts involved are briefly as follows :-There was a joint Hindu family which is now described as Seth Basant Lal-Thakat Singh. The family owns certain immovable properties and they have been assessed for the payment of income-tax on the income thereof. The family claims a deduction of a certain amount of money on the ground that that amount was paid by them on account of interest on money borrowed. Their case further is that this money was borrowed on the security of certain title-dudes and the transaction constituted a mortgage on the property. They further said that the money had been borrowed in order to extend the property.The purpose for which the money may have been borrowed would be immaterial. The whole question is whether any charge was created on the property on the income of which the tax has been assessed.The question that has been formulated by the learned Commissioner is as follows :-'Whether the deposit wi...
Mohammad Salim Ullah Khan Vs. Khan Bahadur Maulvi Khalil-ur-rahman Kha ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.47
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.2. The question is whether a court-fee is chargeable upon a memorandum of objection filed under Order XLI, Rule 26, Civil Procedure Code.3. There is no express provision in the Act making such a document liable to I he payment of a court-fee. The practice hitherto has been to levy a court-fee of Rs. 2 on such documents. It is suggested that this practice is justified under Article 1(d) of Schedule II which makes an application or petition presented to a High Court chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. 2. The question is whether a memorandum of objections filed under Order XLI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, should be held to be an application or petition presented to the High Court. In my opinion the answer is in the negative. The memorandum does not request the court to take any action or to pass any order. Its object is to inform the court and the opposite party that the objector challenges the findings of the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›