Allahabad Court November 1934 Judgments
Mohammad Badrul Haq Rashidi Vs. Shah Hasan Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All278a; 159Ind.Cas.37
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendant-respondents for a declaration that the plot of land detailed in the plaint on which the tomb of the late Maulana Asistands was dedicated by the defendants that it is under the management of the S'ajjadah Nashin of Khankah Rashidia of Jaunpur, and the Sajjadah Nashin of Khankah Rashinda is its mutwalli, that the defendants have no right to interfere with the land so dedicated, that the registered deed of wakf dated 27th November 1922, executed by the defendants was void and ineffective, and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from burying the dead bodies of their family any more and 'from erecting any building on the land which might contravene the terms of the oral wakf. The plaintiff's case was that Maulana Asi who was a revered Mohamedan saint died at Ghazipur, on 25th February 1917. The Maulana was a very pious man and his followers regarded him as a sai...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Ismail Khan Vs. Jawahir Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All492
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 10, Letters Patent, his suit having been dismissed by all the Courts so far. The question that we have to decide is whether the defendant, who claims under a lease, obtained a lease in perpetuity, or a tenure that was to subsist for the lifetime of the original lessee Jai Chand. The facts of the case have been given at length in the judgments of the Courts below and of the learned Single Judge of this Court. It has been consistently held so far that the words employed in the lease, coupled with, the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the parties, lead to only one, inference, namely, that the lease was perpetual. It is not necessary for us to go in detail into the expressions used in the document, because it is clear that the use of the word dawam per se might not imply perpetuity. but in the present case the lessee was given the right to build a house or to let it out on rent to anyone, else. It was further said that th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Income-tax of Madan Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All444; 157Ind.Cas.1000
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(3) by the Income-tax Commissioner. There is a connected reference No. 40 of 1934. The assesses in the present case is a joint Hindu family represented by its Karta. Lala Ramratan Das. The assessee in the connected case is a joint Hindu family represented by its Karta Lala Jaidayal. The two joint families entered into a partnership having equal shares and became a registered firm styled Jaidayal Madangopal. This registered firm consisting of the two joint families as partners became a partner in nine other unregistered firms. On a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner on a previous occasion it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the registered firm (consisting of the two joint families) could not in law be a partner in the aforesaid nine unregistered firms. The result of this decision was that each of the two joint families was taken to be severally a partner in the nine unregistered firms and not as a component part...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gaya Prasad Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All495
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Commissioner, Income-tax, under Section 66(2). The assessce is a Hindu undivided family, which owns a certain house property which is its principal source of income. In previous years income-tax used to be assessed on the income of that property. In the year ending 31st March 1932, the family was assessed on an income which included a sum of Rs. 15,000 received in a trasaction to be presently referred to. The question which arose before the assessing authorities was whether this sum of Rs. 15,000 can be considered to be income, profit, or gain of business within the meaning of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Commissioner held that it was income accruing from business and therefore taxable. He however made a reference under Section 66(2) on the application of the assessee, and the questions which we are called upon to answer are as follows:1. Did the sum of Rs. 14,560 assessed by the Income-tax Officer represent income, profits or gains? 2. If so, d...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Jagmandas Das and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR140(All)
BENNET, J. - This is a reference by the Income Tax Commissioner at the instance of an assessee, a Hindu undivided family. The two questions referred are :-(1) Whether the unrealised decree of Rs. 23,269 against Talatuf Husain and others entered in the interest Khata is taxable income for the purpose of income tax, while in fact the amount has not been received at all, and whether the assessment of the applicants is correct under the law and (2) whether the system of keeping the account adopted by the assessee is simply for the purpose of ascertaining the financial state of the family in a particular year or is open to the interpretation put by the Income Tax Officer ?The assessment was made according to the income tax authorities on the books of the assessee, and it is claimed that the amount of a decree, Rs. 23,012-6-0, which the assessee obtaining in the account year and which was on account of the balance of interest on a certain mortgage, should be shown as the income of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Gayaprasad and Chotey Lal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR177(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 (2). The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, which owns a certain house property which is its principal source of income. In previous years income tax used to be assessed on the income of that property. In the year ending 31st March, 1932 the family was assessed on an income which included a sum of Rs. 15,000 received in a transaction to be presently referred to. The question is arose before the assessing authorities was whether this sum of Rs. 15,000 can be considered to be income, profit, or gain or business within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Commissioner held that it was income accruing from business and, therefore, taxable. He, however, made a reference under Section 66 (2) on the application of the assessee, and the questions which we are called upon to answer are as follows :-(1) Did the sum of Rs. 14,560 assessed by the Income Tax Officer represent income, profits or ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramratan Das and Madan Gopal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR183(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference under Section 66 (3) by the Income Tax Commissioner. There is a connected reference No. 40 of 1934. The assessee in the present case is a joint Hindu family represented by its karta, Lala Ramratan Das. The assessee in the connected case is a joint Hindu family represented by its karta, Lala Jaidayal. The two joint families entered into a partner ship having equal share and became a registered firm styled Jaidayal Madangopal. This registered firm (consisting of the two joint families as partners) became a partner in nine other unregistered firms. On a reference made by the Income Tax Commissioner on a previous occasion it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the registered firm (consisting of the two joint families) could not in law be a partner in the aforesaid nine unregistered firms. The result of this decision was that each of the two joint families was taken to be severally a partner in the nine unregistered firms and not as a component ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kuber Saheb Vs. Phunnan Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All255; 157Ind.Cas.1092
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants for possession over the property described in the plaint and for mesne profits. The plaintiff brought the suit as a mahant and chela of Darshan Das. The. plaintiff's allegation was that the property in dispute belonged to the math of which he was the mahant, that it had been unlawfully transferred by mahant Sheo Raj Das and that the transfer made to the defendants respondents were void and illegal. The plaintiff's predecessor Darshan Das brought a suit in respect of the same property against Bikramajit Rai and Gobind Rai, predecessors-in-title of the other defendants on the same allegations on which the appellant has brought this suit. This property along with the other property had been transferred by Sheo Raj Das mahant to Mt. Sobhagi by deeds dated 21st February 1911 and 10th March 1919, and a compromise dated 28th October 1914. Mt. Sobhagi sold half of the property which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Lal Vs. Mt. Krishna Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All303; 153Ind.Cas.1068
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Allahabad, in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent, Mt. Krishna Bibi, against the appellant, Magan Lal, the adopted son of her husband Mathura Prasad and herself, for recovery of Rs. 5,000 in terms of her husband's will, dated 2nd July 1915, for determination of her maintenance which is claimed by her at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem, and for recovery of arrears thereof for two months before the suit. She also claimed a declaration of her right to reside in the house described in Schedule B annexed to the plaint. Her claim to recover certain moveables, mentioned in Schedule C, was dismissed by the lower Court. She has not challenged that part of the decree either by a separate appeal or cross -objection. The other reliefs, referred to above, were granted by the lower Court, whose decree in respect of them is impugned in appeal.2. The following pedigree will explain the facts of the case a...
Tag this Judgment!Usman Khan Vs. Sitarakhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All256; 157Ind.Cas.1096
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 250 principal and interest on the basis of two deeds dated 12th June 1932 for Rs. 100 each. Objection was taken that these deeds were mortgage-deeds of occupancy plots that no possession was delivered and that the mortgages were illegal. The plaintiff asked that the deeds might be treated as ordinary bonds and that a decree should be passed for the amount advanced. The Court held that as the mortgages were illegal, the documents could not be treated as simple bonds and the suit was dismissed. In revision it was asked that the decree should be set aside and the case remanded for disposal on the merits as the lower Court had taken an errroneous view of law. It appears to me that the deeds were mortgages of occupancy land which is forbidden by the Tenancy Act and therefore the deeds come under Section 23, Contract Act, an ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »