Allahabad Court July 1937 Judgments
Durbijai Singh and anr. Vs. Nawab Zohra Sultan Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All760
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for arrears of rent from Rabi 1338 Fasli to Kharif 1340 Fasli. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to sue and that, in any ease, the plaintiff could not be granted a decree for a sum in excess of her share in the rent of the holding. This contention of the defendants was, in my judgment, rightly overruled by both the Courts below. There is no longer any controversy about the facts and the only question for decision in the appeal is the question of law as to the plaintiff's right to maintain' the suit. The facts are as follows:Chandan Singh, the father of the defendant-appellants, was the proprietor of a fractional share in the mahal, to which the suit relates, and he held some sir land also. Chandan Singh sold his entire proprietary rights in the mahal along with his sir land to the plaintiff, respondent in the year 1880. On transfer of his prop...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitan Prakash and anr. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All762
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-mortgagees arising out of a suit for sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs had sued for recovery of principal and interest for reasons which will hereafter appear. The lower Court decreed their claim for principal but not for interest.2. The facts are that the defendant-respondent Mumtaz Ahmad executed a mortgage deed on 6th January 1931 in favour of Babu Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants. The sum advanced by the mortgagee was Rs. 5,000. The property hypothecated consisted of two houses in the occupation of the mortgagor. The deed purports to be usufructuary mortgage deed, but it contains a distinct stipulation that the mortgagor would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 annas per cent, per month and that the mortgagee would set off the usufruct of the mortgaged property against the interest payable to him. By a deed of even date, mortgagee let the mortgaged property to the mortgagor at the annual rent of...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All11
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Benares at Jaunpur recommending that the order passed by a Magistrate in a case under the Gambling Act that the money found on the persons of the six accused who have been fined shall be at the disposal of the Government be set aside. The learned Judge remarks that this part of the Magistrate's order is clearly in the teeth of the provisions of Section 13, U.P. Gambling Act, for by no stretch of imagination can money be regarded as among the instruments of gambling. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to a ruling of this Court and I think there are other rulings on the point.2. I accept the reference and direct that that part of the Magistrate's order which directs the confiscation of the money found on the persons of the accused, be set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Dawar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All755
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application in revision of one Dawar Singh who was convicted by a Magistrate of an offence under Section 182 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 with one month's rigorous imprisonment in default. His application in revision to the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur was dismissed. This was a case arising out of some dealings in regard to a camel. It is said that one Gauri Shankar gave a camel to the applicant Dawar Singh in settlement of a debt and that Dawar Singh sold the camel to Raghunath. It has been found as a fact that at the instigation of Dawar Singh, who first suggested this to someone else and when that person refused, suggested it to Gauri Shankar, Gauri Shankar made a report at the police station that his camel had disappeared. The Courts below have concluded that the object of making this false report was to cause the police to take action and thereby to cause trouble to Raghunath. This report was made on 2nd September 19...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Devi Vs. Chandrika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All756
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the defendant's application under Section 144, Civil P.C. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit in the Court of the City Munsif of Benares for pre emption of a house in that city and on 22nd May 1932 the learned Munsif decreed the suit. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:Plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs on payment of Rs. 2,150 within a month. In case of non-payment the suit would stand dismissed with costs.2. The amount of the costs awarded to the successful plaintiff by this decree came to Rs. 186.4.0. The plaintiff deposited the sum of Rs. 2150 in Court on 20th June 1932 and on 1st July 1932 he applied for execution of the decree praying for delivery of possession over the house and for the realization of the costs by attachment out of the sum of Rs. 2,150 which he had deposited in Court. In the meanwhile the defendant, the vendee, preferred an appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hasan and anr. Vs. Khalil Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All761
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree passed by the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore. The suit was brought by the plaintiff opposite-party for recovering of an unsecured loan from the defendants. The defendants contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention of the defendants was inter alia based on the provision of Section 7, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which provides that notwith. standing anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, every suit for recovering an unsecured loan in which the defendant, or, where there are several defendants, any of the defendants, is an agriculturist, shall be instituted and tried in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the agriculturist defendant, or any of the agriculturist defendants, actually and voluntarily resides. It is unnecessary to notice the other provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Mithai Lal Vs. Jagan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All740; 172Ind.Cas.17
ORDER1. This is an application in revision from an order refusing to grant leave to the applicant to sue as a pauper. The applicant's own case in the plaint was that he was entitled to a large property as a member of the joint Hindu family which yielded a large income, but that the same had been denied to him. The learned Judge was not satisfied that the applicant was not able to raise money on the security of his share in the joint property so as to pay the prescribed court, fee and has remarked thatthe applicant did not prove that he was not able to raise any money on the security of his share claimed in the suit by partition, (and) as such has not the means to pay the fee prescribed.2. In revision it is contended that the learned Judge was quite wrong in taking into account the subject matter in dispute, because the property must always be excluded when the question has to be considered whether the applicant is a pauper or not. Great reliance is placed on Balagauri Bai v. Moti Lal A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tika Ram and Sons Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All708
ORDER1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act (11 of 1922). Tika Bam & Sons Ltd., the assessee, is a company carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks. It owns as proprietor a part of land from which earth is taken for the manufacture of bricks and it also holds a lease of a portion of such land. It claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,500 representing the value of the earth 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 expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning profits or gains within the meaning of Section 10(2)(ix), 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 claimed as expenditure on account of the price or value of the earth dug and utilized for manufacturing bricks from the total profits of the business or otherwis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›