Allahabad Court October 1937 Judgments
L. Brij Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Sahu Gopi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All76; 173Ind.Cas.913
Collister, J.1. On 5th October 1936 the plaintiff appellants instituted a suit under Section 13, Agriculturists' Belief Act (Local Act No. 27 of 1934) in the Court of the Civil Judge of Pilibhit. On the 27th of that month the Judge directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court, i.e. to the Court of the Munsif. Against that order this appeal has been preferred. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The point is debatable and is by no means without difficulty, but it is unnecessary for us to record a finding upon it for the reason that, assuming an appeal to be competent, it must fail, and in any case this appeal might be treated as a revision. Under Notification No. 7067/30-3 (4) of 17th December 1935, this Court with the previous sanction of the Local Government framed certain rules under the powers conferred upon it by Section 9, Suits Valuation Act. Rule 28(3) reads as follows:Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for accounts onl...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhar Das Vs. Triloki Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All130
Bennet, J.1. These are three execution first appeals brought by Girdhar Das, against Triloki Nath from three orders dated 20th July 1935, 30th July 1935 and 20th July 1935. The case is in regard to the execution of decrees and whether a set off should be allowed under Order 21, Rule 18 or whether such set off is barred by Rule 16 to an assignee. The decree in question ii Decree No. 45 of 1929, Rajnet v. Nageshar Ram and Triloki Nath. This decree was attached by the appellant Girdhar Dag on 19th January 1934 when over Rs. 5000 remained due on the decree. Girdhar Das has five decrees against Rajnet and it was in execution of one of those decrees that ha attached this decree. The position of Tri, loki Nath is as follows: decree No. 106 of 1928 was held by Mt. Phula Kuar v. Rajnet, and Triloki Nath purchased this decree from Mt. Phula on 3rd April 1935 and a sum of Rs. 751-2-0 remains due on it decree No. 507 of 1932, Moti Chand v. Rajnet was purohased by Triloki Nath on 4th April 1935 and...
Tag this Judgment!Jaint Singh and ors. Vs. Nand Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All136
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit brought] by the plaintiffs for a declaration that mauza Khururi, a village in Kumaun, wad a pucca khaikari village. The appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court on 24th February 1937 when we remitted certain issues to the lower Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C. That Court has returned its findings and objections have been taken to those findings by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.2. Before we discuss the findings and the objections taken to them, it is necessary to state in some detail the nature of the tenure with which we are concerned in the present case. In our former order, quoting from Stowell's Manual of the Land Tenures of the Kumaun Division, we pointed out that there were two distinct tenures which have unfortunately been called by the same name 'khaikari' in Kumaun, One class of tenure is what may be called the under, proprietary khaikari, that is pucca k...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Kalyan Das Vs. Babu Kashi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All113
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal from an order returning a plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The learned Judge who passed the order, viz. Mr. Raghunath Prasad Trivedi, Civil Judge of Agra, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and passed the order now under appeal. However, he proceeded to determine the other issues of fact in ease his decision was appealed against. It is against these findings that an objection under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P.C. has been filed by the defendant-respondents. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a certain piece of land. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant had formerly been tenants of this piece of land but that they had ultimately repudiated the plaintiff's title. It was pleaded that a notice had been served upon the defendants claiming possession of the land and accordingly it was said that the defendants were nothing more than trespassers. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Jaiwanti Vs. Mt. Anandi Devi Through Johari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All62; 173Ind.Cas.356
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. the plaintiff is Mb. Jaiwanti and she is the daughter of one Mt. Kapuri, who died in July 1921, leaving certain stridhan property. The defendant Mt. Anandi Devi, is another daughter of Mt. Kapuri. The plaintiff's case was that she as one of the daughters of Mt. Kapuri, deceased, was entitled to a half share in the latter's stridhan and she prayed for a declaration to the above effect. She alleged that at the death of her mother she was unmarried; but alternatively she claimed that even if the contrary were held to be proved, she would have an equal right with her unmarried sister under the law applicable to Jains, to which community the parties belong. The defence to the suit was that Mt. Kapuri was alive at the date of the plaintiff's marriage, that there is no such custom among the Jains as is alloged in the plaint and that the ordinary ruins of Hindu law are applicable. Certain other pleas were also taken which need not be considered. Bo...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chhuttan Lall Vs. B. Dwarka Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All78; 173Ind.Cas.461
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendant against an order of the lower Appellate Court remanding the suit for decision. The facts are that the plaintiff and defendant had a partnership ending on 31st March 1928, and on 30th March 1931 the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lansdowne for accounts. The defendant pleaded want of jurisdiction and on 9th May 1932 the Court ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. An appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge by the plaintiff and on 17th May 1933 this appeal was dismissed and on 2nd June 1933 there was an order of the District Judge for return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff would have been well advised if he had done so but he did not do so. He filed a revision against the District Judge's order in the High Court. Now there was no reason why he should not have filed his plaint in the proper C...
Tag this Judgment!Suchit Chaube and ors. Vs. Baldeo Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All74; 173Ind.Cas.425
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants from an order of the lower Appellate Court upholding a decree of the trial Court awarding arrears of rent to the plaintiff against the defendants for three years, 1338, 1339 and 1340 F,, at the rate of Rs. 177-2-6 per annum. Two points were argued in appeal challenging the finding that there was rent fixed between the parties. The rent in question arose on an exproprietary tenancy and at the time the two defendants were minors and proceedings were taken under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, and the defendants minors were represented by their mother Mt. Jeohha Kuar. A compromise was entered into between the landlord and the tenants re-presented by their mother by which the rent was fixed at Rs. 177-2-6 and the order under Section 36 was passed on that compromise. The broad ground has been taken that an order passed on a compromise under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, is invalid. The provisions in Section 14(1), U.P. Act 3 of 1926, is t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Adhar Misir Vs. Jagnoo Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All100
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for the cancellation of a sale deed executed by a limited owner, Mt. Sonkali deceased, in favour of defendant 1 for Rs. 300. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest reversioner of one Padarath who died some years ago. After the death of Padarath, Mt. Sonkali, his widow, assumed possession of the property in dispute. The defendants contested the suit and alleged that the plaintiff was not the reversioner, that the transfer was for legal necessity and that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif upon a consideration of the evidence held that the plaintiff is the nearest reversioner of Padarath, that the suit is within time and that the transfer was for legal and valid necessity and consequently dismissed the suit. The learned Judge affirmed the decree of the trial Court. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court, as usual, is brief to a degree and it is not possible to ascertain the real facts o...
Tag this Judgment!S. C. Mullick and Sons, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR99(All)
MOHAMMAD ISMAIL, J. - This is a reference by the Income Tax Commissioner under Section 66 of the Income tax Act. Before we state the question which we have to answer it is necessary to state such facts as will indicate the implications of those questions.At page 9 of the statement of the case will be found a pedigree. The common ancestor is one Lakhi Narain Mullick. One of his sons S. C. Mullick migrated from Bengal to Benares and there started hardware business, which proved to be lucrative and became the foundation of the fortune of the family. S. C. Mullick had two sons, A. D. Mullick and K. D. Mullick. S. C. Mullick died in 1930. His A. D. Mullick died in 1933. K. D. Mullick who is alive has two sons and A. D. Mullick has left 7 sons. Up to 1934 the entire family was treated for income tax purpose as a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhag schools of law and assessed as such. On the 14th July, 1934, a deed purporting to be one of partnership was executed by K. D. Mullick his ...
Tag this Judgment!Chunni Lal Vs. Ajudhiya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All63; 173Ind.Cas.646
Collister, J.1. The applicant instituted a suit against the opposite party on 17th April 1935 in a Court at Cawnpore. The written statement was filed on 16th September 1935 and on that date an objection was taken that under Section 7, United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act (Local Act No. 27 of 1934)--which had come into force on 30th April 1935--the suit ought to be tried in the District of Hamirpur where the defendants were residing. This objection found favour with the Sessions and Civil Judge of Cawnpore, who accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Against that order an appeal was presented to the District Judge of Cawnpore, but it was dismissed, and against that order of dismissal the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. Section 7, United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act, provides thatNotwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, ever; suit for recovering an unsecured loan in which the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »