Allahabad Court November 1933 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.
Mt. Rasolan Bibi Vs. Mt. Ram Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1935All205
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Mt. Rasoolan Bibi, against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff, Mt. Ram Kuar, brought a suit for recovery of money and sale on the basis of a mortgage against four defendants, Mt. Husaini Bibi, Mt. Sajan Bibi. Abdul Ghafur and Mt. Rasoolan. Her case against the first three defendants was that they were the representatives of the mortgagor, and as such interested in the mortgaged property and the right to redeem. So far as Mt. Rasoolan, the fourth defendant, was concerned, the only allegation against her in the plaint was that she was in possession of the mortgaged property, in what capacity she was in possession was not mentioned. Mt. Rasoolan filed a written statement and she claimed to be owner of the property. She denied the mortgagors title and the mortgagee's right to sue and set up a paramount title in herself. The other defendants also contested the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, United Provinces Vs. Official Liquidator o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR79(All)
MUKERJI, J. - This Bench was constituted in order to decide four points, which are enumerated in the order of one of us dated 8th September, 1933. Point 4 alone has been argued because it has been found that the other three points do not arise at the present moment. If point 4 be answered in the negative, the liquidators will have to make a 'return' and it is at the time of making the return that questions 1 to 3 would arise. The official liquidators if there be any difficulty, will be at liberty to approach the Honble the Company Judge and obtain direction. When a return has been furnished, it will be for the Income Tax Officer to scrutinize it and to object to any item, if there be one to take exception to. We therefore proceed to decide point 4 on which alone we have been addressed by the learned Counsel for the official liquidators and the legal adviser to an income-tax authorities. The point for decision is :'Whether under the Companies Act a liquidator is exempt from making an in...
Musammat Rasoolan Bibi Vs. Musammat Ram Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.156
1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Musammat Rasoolan Bibi, against an order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff, Musammat Ram Kuar, brought a suit for recovery of money and sale on the basis of a mortgage against four defendants, Musammat Husaini Bibi, Musammat Sajan Bibi, Abdul Ghafur and Musammat Rasoolan. Her case against the first three defendants was that they were the representatives of the mortgagor, and as such interested in the mortgaged property and the right to redeem. So far as Musammat Rasoolan, the fourth defendant, was concerned, the only allegation against her in the plaint was that she was in possession of the mortgaged property, in what capacity she was in possession was not mentioned. Musammat Rasoolan filed a written statement and she claimed to be owner of the property. She denied the mortgagor's title and the mortgagee's right to sue and set up a paramount title in herself. The other defendants also contested the suit. The Court of fir...
Trevellion and Clark Vs. A. Minck
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All203; 147Ind.Cas.982
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Distriot Judge of Sabaranpur. The plaintiff, who is a jeweller of Lahore, brought an action against Messrs. Trevellion & Clark, the well known drapers, who have shops in most of the large towns in Northern India for damages for breach of contract, damages for slander, and for a perpetual injunction to compel Messrs. Trevellion & Clark to deal with the plaintiff. The defendants denied the contract and denied the slander. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was a contract between the parties, that the defendants had broken the contract, and he fixed the damages at Rs. 1. As to slander, he held that plaintiff had been slandered by the defendants, and he gave him Rs. 500 as damages. He also issued an injunction restraining the defendants from refusing to serve the plaintiff. From that decision the defendants appeal. Some years agoj Mr. Minck, the plaintiff, was asked to pay: a dress bill inourred ...
Makhan Lal and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All260
ORDER1. This application in revision is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge of Cawnpore, refusing to entertain a reference made by the Collector under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, and to give an award on the ground that the Collector had no power to make the reference, and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the same.2. Stripped of all unnecessary details, the facts that led to the reference are as follows:Certain land situated in the civil lines of Cawnpore, was needed for Gur Narain Khattari High School, and a notification to that effect was published in the Official Gazette, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, Land Acquisition Act. Tha land was covered with buildings which admittedly belonged to the applicants before us. In pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, a public notice of thefact that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for 'all interest in su...
Lallu Singh Vs. Lala Chander Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All155; 147Ind.Cas.937
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference to a Full Bench, and it has arisen out of a second appeal. The points that will have to be determined by the Full Bench will be stated presently. The facts are as follows:2. One Lakshmi Kunwar was the owner of a certain share in a certain village. She was entitled as such co-sharer to certain profits for the year 1334 Fasli as against the appellant, Lallu Singh, who is the lam. bardar of the mahal in which the share lies. The profits fell due to her on 1st August 19'27, and two days later, on 3rd August 1927, she assigned her right to recover the profits to the respondent Chandra Sen, Chandra Sen brought the suit out of which this second appeal arose for recovery of the said profits. In the years 1332 and 1333 Fasli, Lakshmi Kunwar failed to pay her share of the land revenue. Lallu Singh had to pay the same as the lambardar. He filed a suit for recovery of the sums thus paid by him and obtained a decree against Lakshmi Kunwar. It is alleged that Lakshm...
Mt. Balkesha Kunwar and anr. Vs. Harakh Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All255; 147Ind.Cas.1114
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale which forms the basis of the suit was made by Harakha Chand, defendant No. 1, in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 on the 16th of March 1928. The property transferred consisted of shares in two villages. After the date of the sale, that is, on the i5th of April 1929, one Jaganath, a tenant of one of: the vendees, brought a suit against Kalap Nath, plaintiff No. 2, a minor, for a sum of money, and obtained a degree. In execution of this decree for money Kalap Naih's property in the two villages in suit was sold by auction on 21st August 1929 and was purchased by defendants 2 to 7. The sale was confirmed and possession was delivered to them on the 19th and 20th of October 1929. On the 23rd October 1929 in application was made on behalf of Kalap Nath for setting aside the sale. The application purported to be made under Order 21, Rule 90, but subsequently it was settled that the application must be und...
Lala Ram and ors. Vs. Budhu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All330; 147Ind.Cas.990
Kisch, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money.2. The facts are not in dispute. The defendant's father Khem Ram filed a suit in the village panchayat court against the present plaintiff Budhu. This suit was decreed ex parte for the sum of Rs. 48-11-0. Budhu applied to the Collector under Section 71, U.P. Village Panchayat Act, for vacation of the decree on the ground that the son of the plaintiff in that suit was one of the panchas. The Collector accepted the application and vacated the decree. Khem Ram objected that the information given to the Collector was incorrect, and ultimately the Collector, having ascertained that the plaintiff's son was not in fact one of the panchas who decided the suit, restored the decree. In execution of the decree the present defendants realised the decretal amount from the present plaintiff.3. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the Collecto...
Churey Lal Vs. Firm Jagannath Sashi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All458a
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, calling upon a next friend of some minor plaintiffs to provide security for costs. The application is made on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, and it must be admitted that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for calling upon the next friend of minor plaintiffs to provide security for costs, though it is open to the Court to make an order after the hearing for costs against a next friend, and to call on a next friend to provide security in the event of his retiring : Order 32, Rule 4(4) and Order 32, Rule 8(1). I have not been referred to any authority of this or any other High Court for holding that a Court may call upon a next friend to provide security for costs. The question was considered in the case of Bai Porebai v. Devji Meghji (1899) 23 Bom. 100, where the Court went so far as to say that:If then, the next friend of an infant plaintiff and not the...
Mt. Dulia and anr. Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All455a; 147Ind.Cas.437
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal from the following order of the Court below dated 26th January 1933:For the ends of justice it is necessary to obtain definite findings from the trial Court on the following issues.... The finding shall be returned to this Court within six weeks and the parties will be at liberty to file objections there to according to law.2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies to this Court from an order by which the appellate Court has framed certain issues and referred them for trial to the first Court. The reply of learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant is that by reason of a recent amendment by the Allahabad High Court in Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (u) an appeal has been permitted. Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (u) before the amendment stood as follows:An order under Rule 23, Order 41 remanding a case where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court.3. After the amendment the rule runs as follows:Any or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »