Allahabad Court March 1937 Judgments
Raja Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All569
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge, of Allahabad, dismissing his claim for a, declaration that a certain declaration, made by the Local Government of the-United Provinces under Section 8, U.P. Court of 'Wards Act, 1912, was illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff is a taluqdar and is the proprietor of a large estate known as the Amethi estate which is said to be worth about 1 crores of rupees. On 7th March 1930, the Local Government of the United Provinces acting under Section 8, Court of 'Wards Act, declared the plaintiff to be disqualified to manage his own property and consequently the Court of 'Wards, assumed superintendence of the property of the plaintiff under Section 12(1), Court of 'Wards Act. The plaintiff alleged that the declaration made by the Local Government disqualifying him from managing his own property was contrary to the provisions of Section 8, U.P. Court of Wards Act and consequently brought this suit for a declaration that ...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Saheb Moulvi Mohammad Hasan Vs. Gajadhar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All585
1. The following question was referred to the Full Bench for decision:Whether a person who does not pay in his own right land revenue of Ra. 1,500 per annum but who is a member of a joint Hindu family paying land revenue amounting to more than Rs. 5,000 is eligible for election to the Court of Wards or the Agra Province Zamindars' Association under Section 4, United Provinces Court of Wards Act, read with Rule 5 of the Rules of the Agra Province Zamindars' Association and the United Provinces Electoral Rules.2. The Full Bench has answered both parts of this question in the negative. Id follows that the defendant, B. Gajadhar Prasad, has not been duly elected as a member of the Court of Wards inasmuch as he was not eligible for election for such a post. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended in these circumstances that he was entitled to a declaration in terms of the prayer of his plaint. The prayer is in the following terms:It be declared that the plaintiff is the duly elected mem...
Tag this Judgment!Daulat Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.496
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Daulat Khan against his conviction and sentences under Section 185, Municipalities Act and Section 79, U.P. Town Improvement Act. He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 under each of the sections. The applicants obtained a plot of land for building purposes from the Improvement Trust. He executed an agreement in which the conditions under which the applicant was to build were given. One of the conditions was that no balcony or any projection over the foot-path or any portion of the road or land shall be made without the special sanction of the Trust. The applicant thereafter constructed a house with a. balcony projecting over a foot-path. A notice was served on the applicant under Section 79, Town Improvement Act, to remove the balcony but he failed to comply with it. Thereafter he was prosecuted and has been convicted. The street in which the applicant's house has been transferred by the Improvement Trust to the Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Masammat Jamna Kunwar Vs. Kunj Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All502; 170Ind.Cas.743
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the appellant Musammat Jamna Kunwar was the plaintiff and Kunj Behari Lal and Ajodhia Prasad were the original defendants. Ajodhia Prasad was the father of Kunj Behari Lal. He died before any written statement could be put in on his behalf. Musammat Jamna Kunwar alleged that her deceased husband and the two defendants Ajodhia Prasad and Kunj Behari Lal had been members of a partnership, that after her husband's death she had taken his place and that' Ajodhia Prasad and Kunj Behari Lal who. were the managing partners had not paid to her, her share of the profits accruing to the firm After the death of Ajodhia Prasad the suit proceeded against Kunj Behari Lal and he took the plea eventually that Ram Sarup, a relation of the plaintiff, was a member of the firm and that he should be impleaded. Ram Sarup was impleaded accordingly, but that was not till the period of limitation for a suit for accounts against him had expired. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. Vs. Tika Ram and Sons Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR544(All)
This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922). Tika Ram & Sons Ltd., the assessee, is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks. It owns as proprietor a part of the land from which earth is taken for the manufacture of bricks and it also hols a lease of a portion of such land. It claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,500 representing the value of the earthh used up in the manufacture of bricks during the year in question should be deducted as depreciation of its property. Later the position taken up was that it was expeniture incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains within the meaning of Sec. 10(2)(ix) of the Income-tax Act. The question referred to the High Court is whether the applicant is entitled on these facts to a deduction of the amount claime as expenditure on account of the price or value of the earth dug and utilised for manufacturing bricks from the total profits of the business or o...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Itwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All512
Bennet, J.1. These are two second -appeals in which the points are similar. The appeals are brought by the plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the defendants are different. The plaintiff brought a suit for arrears of ground rent at the rate of two annas a month in one case and two annas six pies in the other case and also sued to eject the defendants from possession of the sites of their houses on the ground that the defendants held those sites as tenants from month to month and that the plain, tiff had given a lawful notice. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to eject the defendant and dismissed that portion of the suit but decreed recovery of the sum claimed in each case. The lower appellate Court has upheld those decrees. The plaintiff produced evidence to show that the land was nazul and that there was an entry in the nazul register that these monthly sums were payable, but the entry did not show that they were payable as rent. The con...
Tag this Judgment!Pt. Brij Chandra Sharma Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All618
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court holding that defendant 6 is not liable for the claim of the plaintiff brought under Section 221 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926). The plaint Beta out that the plaintiff is a lambardar of mauza Jahangirpur and that he paid the land revenue for the Pasli year 1338 and the Fasli year 1339 to the Government Treasury and that during those years defendants 1 to 3 were owners in possession of half the property and defendant 4, mortgagee, was in possession of the other half. The property had originally belonged to one Mt. Champa Devi who it is found died in December 1926. Defendants 1 to 3 obtained mutation and possession as her heirs. Defendant 6, Ram Narain, contested their claim and filed a civil suit and ventually succeeded in obtaining a decree of the High Court for possession as the heir of Mt. Champa Devi and on that decree he was put into possession and his name was entered in the khewat on...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Bahadur Mohammad Hadiyar Khan Vs. Umardaraz Ali Khan and Naiksey ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.621
Niamat Ullah, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to collect rent of certain plots specified at the foot of the plaint, situate in Patti No. 20 of village Kasma Musalmin, and that defendant No. 5, Khan Bahadur Muhammad Hadiyar Khan, is not so entitled. The plaintiffs cause of action, as stated in the plaint, was that defendants Nos. 1.4 cultivated the plots in suit and had been paying rent to the plaintiff, but in April 1927, the plaintiff's suit against them was dismissed on the plea that they had paid rent to defendant No. 5 in good faith. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it.2. It appears that there is a number of co-sharers in Patti No. 20, that there has been a constant scramble between the plaintiff on the one side and two Indies, Musammats Sakina Begam and Alleemun Nissa, and Khan Bahadur Hadiyar Khan, defendant No. 5, on the other. The question mostly arose on s...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chokhey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.453
1. Chokhey was convicted by a Magistrate on a charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, who allowed his appeal and set aside the conviction. The Local Government has appealed to this Court from the' order of acquittal. It appears that a man named Bihari gave information about certain burglaries and dacoities and implicated the respondent who was thereupon arrested. The respondent gave certain information, to Nasir Ali Khan, the Sub-Inspector of Shikohabad, and took him to a place near a cabin of the railway station at Shikohabad. He then dug up the ground at that spot and produced a gun. The recovery note was attested by certain persons, including Pt, Chheda Lal, who came into the witness box and gave evidence. The only two witnesses in the case were the Sub-Inspector and Pt. Chheda Lal. The respondent denied having been in possession of the gun or having produced it, but was unable to explain why ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Kailash Chandra Vs. Lala Radhey Shiam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All565
ORDER1. This is an application by a judgment-debtor appellant praying that this Court should extend the time for filing an appeal under the provisions of Section 5, Limitation Act. The proposed appeal is against an order of the learned District Judge passed on appeal in a case arising out of the Agriculturists' Belief Act. The proceedings commenced by an application by the judgment, debtor in the Court of the learned Civil Judge that the interest under a certain mortgage decree should be reduced and that it should be ordered that the amount due under that decree be paid by instalments. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist and therefore was not entitled to claim the benefits of Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Belief Act 1934. The judgment-debtor appealed to the learned District Judge against the order of the learned Civil Judge. It would appear that in the grounds of appeal he complained against the refusal of the Court of f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »