Allahabad Court April 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.
Jai Dayal Madan Gopal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR186(All)
SULAIMAN, C.J. - The question referred to the High Court by the Commissioner is in the following words :'Whether having regard to the deed of partnership, dated 16th April, 1928, and to other relevant evidence on the record the finding that the registered firm Jai Dayal Madan Gopal of Benares is in its corporate capacity a partner in nine other firms bearing the same name was a legal and proper finding ?'It is obvious that the Commissioner has assumed that a registered firm can under the law be a partner in another firm in its corporate capacity, and he has asked to answer the question whether having regard to the deed to the partnership and to other relevant evidence on the record, the firm Jai Dayal Madan Gopal of Benares is a partner in the other firms. Strictly speaking the question of law that one firm cannot legally be a partner in another firm in its corporate capacity has not been referred to us. This would be clear if we see the grounds in the petition of the assessee for refe...
Kalu Ram Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All485
1. The taxing Judge has referred two questions of law to a Full Bench. The case itself has not been referred to us. Section 5, Court-fees Act, has in no way been contravened. The final order will be passed by the taxing Judge himself in the light of the observations of this Full Bench.2. The suit was instituted by the nephew and the son of Sunder Lal, who had executed a mortgage deed on 20th December 1918 in favour of the defendant-appellant Kalu Ram. In the mortgage suit the present plaintiffs also were impleaded under the guardianship of their grandmother. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 16th September 1925, which resulted in a final decree on 2nd April 1927. In the present suit the plaintiffs sought to avoid the mortgage deed on the ground that it was fictitious and without consideration and legal necessity, the compromise on the ground of fraud, and the decree on the ground of negligence and collusion of the guardian. Two main reliefs claimed were as fol...
Mahtab Singh Vs. the Collector of Saharanpur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All454
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Mahtab Singh, and arises out of a suit brought in the following circumstances: Raja Balwant Singh, whose estate is now under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, owned villages Nejabatpur and Jamaluddinpur which were subject to a common charge of Rs. 75,625 on 5th August 1921, under a mortgage deed in favour of Kunwar Sen and Bansidhar. On 26th July 1921, Raja Balwant Singh agreed to sell village Nejabatpur to the appellant Mahtab Singh for a sum of Rs. 73,725. Similarly he agreed on the same date to sell village Jamaluddinpur to Raghuraj Singh for a sum of Rs. 17,000. It was agreed that out of the consideration of Rs. 73,735 payable by the appellant for village Nejabatpur, a sum of Rs. 58,625 would be paid to the mortgagees Kunwar Sen and Bansidhar. The village was in possession of a lessee who had paid rent in advance and who was entitled to retain possession for six years. The rent for the six years thus received by the vend...
(Kunwar) Abdul Jalil Khan and anr. Vs. (Kunwar) Mohammad Abdul Salam K ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All505
Pullan, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by Mahomed Abdul Salam Khan for a one-third share in the annual rent of a property known as Glanville, owned by him and his two brothers who are defendants 1 and 2 in the case and leased to Messrs. Evans Fraser & Co., who are defendant 4. The third' defendant Mr. Lindsay Smith is the agent who receives rent from defendant 4 for the lessors. The plaintiff has already brought one suit against his brothers in the year 1925, and there is no question that since that time the plaintiff has been attempting to get from his brothers his share in the profits of the family property and that the profits have been withheld, from him. The present suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 18,159-5-9 together with proportionate costs against defendant 1 only. This sum includes the plaintiff's one-third share in the rent of the property and also interest at the rate of one per cent per month. Three points are raised in appeal by defendant 1 Abbul Jalil K...
Qasim HusaIn Reg Vs. Bibi Kaniz Sakina
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All649
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of half the dower debt on the ground that the defendant has divorced the plaintiff and that there had been no consummation of marriage. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff and without any relinquishment of the dower debt pronounced divorce which put an end to the first marriage. The claim was resisted by the defendant on the ground that at the time of the marriage, fraud and misrepresentation were practised by the plaintiff's guardian viz., her father, and the marriage was voidable and therefore no claim for dower could he maintained. It was further pleader that owing to the fact that the plaintiff's maternal aunt was a woman of low caste, the defendant wanted to repudiate the marriage and then it was agreed that there could be a khula in consideration for the relinquishment of the dower and that the khula was ultimately gone through by the plaintif...
Puran Mal and anr. Vs. Shiva Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1935All234
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court reversing the decree of the lower appellate Court.2. It appears that one Inayat Khan and his three brothers were entitled to 5/6 share in a village, the remaining 1/6th belonged to a lady. Instead of mortgaging his 1/4 out of the 5/6, Inayat Khan made a mortgage of 1/4 share in the village to the present plaintiffs. This came to about 17 bighas odd and the remaining 1/4 of 1/6 came to about 2 bighas. Subsequently a sale-deed was taken from the lady in the names of the sons of Inayat Khan and their wives whose names were entered in the revenue papers. The defendants, in execution of a money decree against the sons and their wives, got 1/4 of 1/6 share belonging to the lady attached and put up for sale, and they purchased it themselves. Now, the plaintiffs have brought this suit for sale, on the basis of their mortgage-deed and wish to enforce the security against the ex...
Aziz Ullah Khan and ors. Vs. Court of Wards
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All587
King, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge to the effect that a mortgage decree and certain connected documents be amended. The applicant before us mortgaged certain zamindari property in a village called 'Nawadiya Zamania Nagla,' but by an accidental slip the property was described in the mortgage deed as being situated in the village 'Nagla Zamania Nawadiya.' The words are the same, but the order has been inverted by an accidental slip. It is admitted that there is no village bearing the latter name or at least that there is no village of that name in which the mortgagor has or ever had any interest. There was never any doubt as to the identity of the mortgaged property.2. The mortgagee brought a suit upon the basis of the mortgage, obtained a preliminary decree, which was upheld by the appellate Court, obtained a final decree and brought the property to sale. The mortgagee himself purchased the property at the auction sale, obtained a...
L. Ram Charan Lal Vs. Mt. Hanifa Khatun and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All591
King, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The suit was upon the basis of a bond executed by one Zahur Ahmad. Zahur Ahmad died before the institution of the suit and the creditor impleaded his widow, his father and his daughter, who were alleged to be in possession of his property as his heirs and legal representatives. There was some difficulty in the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the daughter, who was a minor, and the plaintiff discharged her from the array of defendants. The plaintiff's claim was proved and the trial Court passed a decree against the father and the widow only in proportion to their shares of inheritance in the property of Zahur Ahmad deceased, subject to the usual condition that the decree shall be executed against the defendants to the extent of Zahur Ahmad's assets in their possession. It is contended by the plaintiff in revision that the trial Court was wrong in passing a decree against the two defendants...
District Board of Farrukhabad and ors. Vs. Ikhlaque Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All86
Boys, J.1. This matter came before me first of all sitting alone, and I referred it to a Bench of two Judges, principally with the view to' take a more binding interpretation, than would be the case when I sit alone of Clause (c). Section 115, Civil P.C. It is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit by a plaintiff (a) for a declaration that the plaintiff was secretary of the District Board, and (b) for an injunction restraining the Board from interfering with the exercise by him of the duties of secretary. The plaintiff eventually withdrew his prayer for a declaration on an objection being taken that he had given no notice to the Secretary of State. The Munsif refused to grant a temporary injunction for which the plaintiff also asked. On appeal to the District Judge, that Court eventually gave the plaintiff a temporary injunction, and hence the defendant's present application in revision. The grounds are two-fold: first, that no appeal lay to the District Judge; sec...
Md. Said Khan Vs. Md. Abdus Sami Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All664
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor whose application to have a sale hell on 20th December 1980 set aside has failed. The usual objections-ware taken, namely there was a material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, and there was a substantial injury to the judgment-debtor. It appears that a 1/6th share in a certain village was advertised to be sold as the property of the judgment debtor, the appellant before us. A day before the date fixed for the sale, the sale of one-third share out of the 1/6th share advertised for sale was postponed at the instance of the appellant's sister, who it appears, had instituted a suit against the decree-holder, claiming one third share as the judgment-debtor's sister. The first objection is that the postponement of the sale of the one-third share made it a necessity to issue a fresh proclamation. The case of Shib Prokash Singh v. Sardar Doyal Singh [1878] 3 Cal. 544 has been cited before us in support of this contention. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »