Allahabad Court January 1934 Judgments
In Re: Income-tax Reference of Vijaya Ananda Gajapatiraj Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All818
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66, Income-tax Act. The assessee is the Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram, the younger brother of the present Maharaja of the estate and the second son of the late Maharaja, who died in 1922. The question that has been submitted for decision by this Court is as follows:Whether, on the facts of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,20,000 received annually by the assessee from the Vizianagaram Raj is liable to income-tax and super-tax, or is exempt either under Section 14(1) of the Act or Section 4(3)(viii) thereof as being agricultural income.2. The facts to which reference has been made in the question are as follows : The late Maharaja of Vizianagaram executed a deed of trust on 28th October 1912. The deed provided that the trustee, Mr. Flower, who was to take over the possession and management of the estate in present should pay off the debts then due from the Maharaja, that the heir-apparent should become the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: [1934]2ITR186(All)
. - This is a Reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram, the younger brother of the present Maharaja of that estate and the second son of the late Maharaja who died in 1922. The question that has been submitted for decision by this Court is as follows :-'Where on the facts of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,20,000 received annually by the assessee from the Vizianagaram Raj is liable to income-tax and super-tax or is exempt either under Section 14 (1) of the Act or Section 4 (3) (viii) thereof as being agricultural income ?'The facts to which of reference has been made in question are as follows :-The late Maharaja of Vizianagaram executed a deed of trust on October 28, 1912. The deed provided that the trustee, Mr. Flower, who was to take over the possession and management of the estate in praesenti should pay off the debts then due from the Maharaja, that the heir-apparent should become the immediate ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagrup Ram Kasaundhan Vs. Kashi Prasad Gupta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All658
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur, dated 8th March 1933, in a suit by the applicant against the opposite party. The suit arises out of an arbitration award. On. 25th April 1929, defendants 1 to 3, in the suit, executed a promissory note in. favour of defendant 4. On 19th December 1931, defendant 4 transferred the promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit on the basis of the proraissory note against defendants 1 to 3, and he also impleaded defendant 4.2. Defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff agreed to have the question in dispute between them settled by arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed by the Court who heard evidence and arguments on behalf of the parties and finally issued an award in favour of defendants 1 to 3. As a result of this award the learned Munsif passed the order against which this application is preferred. The order is in these terms:It is therefore held that the award is valid so f...
Tag this Judgment!Habibullah Khan Vs. Bhabuti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All551
Mukerji, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he dismissed the second appeal before him. The original plaintiff died pending the litigation and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. The plaintiff, Jadunath Misir, claimed a declaration in respect of two groves bearing Nos. 182 and 189, on the allegation that they were his, and in a partition between the zamindars to which he was not a party, the defendant got the groves enter, ed in his name in the village papers. The plaintiff asserted that he was in possession and was entitled to the declaration. As a matter of precaution he asked for delivery of possession if it was found that he was out of possession.2. The defence was that the plot No. 189 was not a grove at all but was a highway in the village and the plaintiff had nothing to do with it; that plot No. 182 was no doubt a grove but it had been planted by some tenants who died heirless and that...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Maida Vs. Kishan Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All645
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal was preferred by one Mt. Maida who was the principal defendant in the suit out of which it arose. She died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by her son Qutubullah and heirs of the other son Wali Muhammad, who also died during the pendency of the appeal.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs B. Kishan Bahadur Singh and three others for recovery of Rupees 6,249-12-0 as damages for certain property having passed out of their possession. The property had been transferred to them by Mt. Maida acting as the guardian of her minor sons Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad, under a sale deed dated 30th July 1908.3. The circumstances which led to the present litigation are not in dispute. One Namdar died in 1907 leaving his widow Mt. Maida and three sons, Chhedi, Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad. Chhedi died in 1915 and is now represented by his heirs defendants 2 to 4. At the time of Namdar's death and for some time after it Qutubullah and Wali Muhamm...
Tag this Judgment!Phul Chand and ors. Vs. Khwaja Tahir Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All442
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application by one Phul Chand for being arrayed as respondent in first appeal No. 249 of 1933. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage executed in 1926 by Tahir Husain, appellant, in favour of one Chharang Ram. Chharang Ram died leaving two sons, Phul Chand and Hansraj. Phul Chand, the applicant before us, is a person other than Phul Chand son of Chharang Ram.2. Phul Chand, son of Chharang Ram filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal and he impleaded Tahir Husain and his brother Hansraj as defendants to the suit. He alleged in the plaint that he and Hansraj were entitled to the mortgage debt in equal shares and, that Hansraj was being impleaded as a pro forma defendant.3. During the pendency of the suit in the Court below, Phul Chand, applicant purchased the rights and interest of Hansraj in the mortgage deed in suit and filed an application in the Court below for being added as a defendant to the suit. On 26th February 1930, the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Das and ors. Vs. Mt. Dhanni and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All541; 150Ind.Cas.738
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the learned Munsif of Hathras, giving the plaintiff a decree under Section 9, Specific Belief Act,. 1877. The plaintiff-opposite-party sued for recovery of possession of a house which had been dedicated by his father-in-law for charitable purposes, and of which he was the manager alleging that the defendants-applicants had conspired together to dispossess him and had done so towards the end of October 1932, and the defence was that the plaintiff had no right to possession as the house was public property. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had given the defendants-applicants permission to occupy the house for a religious function, and they afterwards refused to vacate it. Whether the Court accepted this as a finding of fact is not quite clear, but the reasoning in the judgment is that, supposing this is to be the case, the plaintiff was still in constructive possession through the de...
Tag this Judgment!L. Pearey Lal Vs. Mahesh Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All493
Thom, J.1. This is a first appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, dated the 4th of November 1932. The order is in the following terms:The award, dated 29th of September 1931 shall be filed and a decree shall be framed according to the award. The award shall form part of the decree. The plaintiffs shall get their costs from the defendant.2. Lala Laeq Chand, plaintiff 1, was the Government Treasurer, in the district of Aligarh. Plaintiff 2, Lala Gulab Chand is a brother of Laeq Chand. Plaintiff 3, Lala Krishen Kunwar, a minor is anooher brother of Laeq Chand. The defendant Lala Pearey Lal is the agent of Lala Laeq Chand. He acted as agent to Lila Phul Chand who died in 1929. He has acted since 1929 as agent to Lala Liaq Chand, Lala Phul Chand was the Government Treasurer in the district Aligarh. Lila Laeq Chand succeeded his father as Treasurer in 1929. The Treasurer appoints tahsildars who, in various tahsils in the district of Aligarh, received dues on behal...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Pathak Vs. Gaya DIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All725
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession under Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act. The zamindar has also been impleaded. It appears that a suit for redemption was brought by the defendant against the plaintiff which was first dismissed by the Munsif on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. His decree was set aside on appeal and the case was remanded and the order of remand was affirmed by the High Court. On remand the Munsif decreed the claim ex parte for redemption against the plaintiff.2. In 1928, the pre sent plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his status as an occupancy tenant against the present defendant under Sections 121 and 123, Agra Tenancy Act, and he also impleaded the zamindar as a party. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector and the decree was affirmed by the Commissioner on 4th October 1928. In the Revenue Court a copy of the judgment of the Munsif in the redemption suit had been filed, but the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Ram and ors. Vs. Sirtaj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All825; 152Ind.Cas.115
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants filed in the revenue Court. The plaint, as filed, professed to be one in a suit under Section 44 of Act 3 of 1926. Various pleas were taken in the written statement but the Assistant Collector decreed the claim of the plaintiffs. He, however, held that the plaintiff had wrongly put down his claim under Section 44 of the Tenancy Act and that he should get a decree for ejectment under Section 197(e) read with Section 84(a) of the Act. He passed a decree accordingly. The defendants went up in appeal to the Commissioner's Court and there an objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff that no appeal lay to the Commissioner inasmuch as the Court had passed the decree under Section 84 and not under Section 44 of the Act. 'The learned Commissioner entertained' the objection and returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper Court. On this the defendants filed their appeal in the Court of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »