Allahabad Court August 1937 Judgments
Deokinandan Pandey Vs. Ram Chandra Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All17; 173Ind.Cas.180
ORDER1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against the order passed by the District Judge of Benares confirming that of a munsif of that district, who returned the plaint filed in his Court by the applicant for presentation to the proper Court, that is the Revenue Court. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he and defendants 2 to 6 are members of a joint Hindu family owning certain fixed-rate tenancy lands specified at the foot of the plaint and that defendants 2 and 3 conspired to alienate the property in suit fraudulently without consideration and without legal necessity in favour of their relative, defendant 1, to the detriment of the plaintiff. The plaint also alleges that defendants 4 to 6 are the other members of the family. As a matter of fact, defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 2 and defendant 6 is the nephew of defendant 2. The relief originally claimed by the plaintiff was cancellation of a sale deed dated 18th August 1934 execute...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Latif Khan Vs. Mt. Sikandar Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All3; 173Ind.Cas.127
1. This is an appeal by a Judgment debtor arising out of execution proceedings. A simple money decree was passed against the appellant, and in execution of that decree certain properties were sought to be attached. The judgment-debtor objected that the property was wakf property and was not liable to attachment and sale. The Court below has held that the disputed property is dedicated property under a deed of wakf-alal-aulad, dated 12th August 1920. It has therefore come to the conclusion that the property could not be attached and sold but has appointed a receiver of the property. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of the appeal that no appeal lies. It is argued that the judgment-debtor in setting up a trust is resisting execution in a capacity different from that which he occupied as the judgment-debtor, and that therefore Section 47, Civil P.C., is inapplicable. Reliance is placed on the case in Kartick Chandra Ghose v. Ashutosh Dhara (1912) 39 Cal. 298. That ruling has...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Faruq, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1937
Reported in: [1938]6ITR1(All)
COLLISTER, J. - Under the provisions of Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred to us the following question of law :-'Whether the fully paid up shares of Rs. 15,000 allotted to the applicant in service of one of the shareholders only by the Directors of the Pipraich Sugar Factory Ltd., under the circumstances mentioned above, i.e., voluntarily and without any previous agreement or understanding, amount to an income assessable under law or are mere receipts of a casual and non-recurring nature within the meaning of Section 4(3) (vii) and exempt from assessment.'The applicant was employed by Syed Jawad Ali Shah as the manager of the Mian Sahib of Imambara Estate in the Gorakpur district on a salary of Rs. 400 a month. Syed Jawad Ali Shah established a sugar factory on this estate. He afterwards decided to transfer the factory to a limited company. The Pipraich Sugar Factory Ltd., was established in order to take over the concern. The applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Singh Vs. Bishan Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All1; 173Ind.Cas.676
ORDER1. In this case there had been previous dealings between the parties, and there were in existence two hypothecation bonds of 1926 and 1927, part of the amounts due on which were paid off. On 13th and 14th August 1933 the present applicant Dharam Singh executed a fresh mortgage deed in lieu of the amounts due under the previous bonds in favour of the defendant Bishan Sarup, admitting that Rs. 4,300 in all were due from him, and mortgaging with possession the same properties which had been previously hypothecated. It has been admitted that no fresh advance was made by the mortgagee and no additional cash was paid. Under the terms of the usufructuary mortgage deed the mortgagee was entitled to appropriate income in lieu of the interest due to him, and accordingly no rate of interest was prescribed under the usufructuary mortgage deed. The present applicant filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad under Section 33(2), Agriculturists' Relief Act, for an account of money pay...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Misra Vs. Rammanog Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All794
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for partition brought in the Civil Court. The only question argued in this Court is whether a certain rent-free tenure, which is included in the property sought to be partitioned, can be divided otherwise than under Section 37, Agra Tenancy Act. It is argued that the only Court which has jurisdiction to divide it is the Revenue Court. Section 37 is not very happily worded. It provides that:A division of a holding or distribution of the rent payable in respect of a holding or any portion thereof, or such division and distribution, shall be efiected only by agreement between the cotenants or by the decree in a suit instituted under this section by one or more of the co-tenants against the others, provided that such division or distribution shall not be binding on the landholder unless he agrees thereto in writing.2. Section 230, Agra Tenancy Act, provides that no Court other than Revenue Courts shall have jurisdiction to entertain suits ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram and ors. Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All6; 173Ind.Cas.157
ORDER1. This is an application by the judgment-debtors under Section 115, Civil P.C. A suit was brought against (1) Cut Piece Co. Ltd., (2) Babu Ram, (3) Shankar Lal, and (i) Raghunandan Lal as Proprietor of the Firm Bhup Shing Bihari Lal. The suit was ultimately decreed on the basis of a compromise and a joint decree against the Cut Piece Co. Ltd. as well as the three other defendants was passed. It is not now necessary to go behind the compromise decree and try to find out what the basis of the claim was. Babu Ram, Shankar Lal and Raghunandan applied to the Collector under the Encumbered Estates Act and it is not disputed that the Act applies to them. Afterwards an application was filed by these three persons to the execution Court which was executing the respondent's decree with the prayer that the proceedings should be stayed, under Section 7 United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. The Court summarily rejected the application ordering that the execution should proceed. An appeal w...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All12
ORDER1. This is a decree-holder's application for revision of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Meerut allowing a judgment-debtor's application under Sections 5 and 30 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934. The applicants, the Allahabad Bank Ltd. obtained a decree against members of a joint Hindu family, namely Babu Lal and his three sons, one of whom is the present opposite party, Prakash Nath. Later Babu Lal, the karta, applied under Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for the payment of the decree by instalments and for the reduction of interest payable on the loan. This application was dismissed upon the ground that Babu Lal was not an agriculturist, and later he applied for a review of that order. His application for review of the order was eventually dismissed and he then appealed to the District Judge, and when the present application of Prakash Nath was before the lower Court, Babu Lal's appeal was still pending before the District Judge. We are no...
Tag this Judgment!Munshi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All16
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This revision has been admitted on the ground of sentence. The applicant Munshi Ram has been convicted under Section 377 read with Section 511, I.P.C. He has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to undergo 20 stripes or six months' further rigorous imprisonment. These sentences were confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts of the case have been given in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and they need not be repeated as they are not necessary for the purpose of the consideration of the question as to whether the sentence of whipping is legal or not. It has been urged and I think rightly that the sentence of whipping cannot be inflicted in the case of an attempt to commit an offence, under Clause (b) of Section 4, Whipping Act. Section 4, Whipping Act, lays down:Whoever (a) abets, commits or attempts to commit rape as defined in Section 875, I.P.C., Act 45 of 1860; (b) oompels or induces any person by fear of bodily inj...
Tag this Judgment!Deb Singh Vs. Thagu Sah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All795
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption in respect of properties sold in Garhwal. The plaintiff is admittedly a resident co-sharer in the village in which the property is situated. The defendant certainly resides in the neighbouring village. Some-time ago he purchased a share in the village in question, but in the sale deed there was no mention of any transfer of a cow. shed or other building. His case has been that he possesses a cow. shed in the village in question where his cattle and servants and sometimes himself live. The learned District Judge is doubtful whether a cow-shed exists at all. In any case, he has come to the conclusion that the possession of a cow-shed in this village where his cattle and servants may live would not be a sufficient residence of the defendant. I agree with this view. A person cannot be said to be a resident co-sharer if he has got no residential house of his own where he ordinarily resides, but has got a mer...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Jagdei and anr. Vs. Sampat Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All796
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiffs, respondents for possession over the fixed rate tenancy described in the plaint and Rs. 90 for mesne profits for three years. The tenancy in dispute belonged to Sital Dube. On his death it was succeeded to by his widow Mt. Phulbasi. She died in August 1933. Mt. Phulbasi and her daughter mortgaged the tenancy to Bhawani Palat and subsequently sold the same to him on 7th January 1901. Bhawani Palat gifted the same to the defendants in 1925. The plaintiffs claimed the tenancy in dispute as reversioners of Sital Dube. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of Sital Dube and that the transfer had been made for legal necessity. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were not the reversioners and dismissed the suit. It also found that there was no legal necessity for the sale deed. Sampat Dube, one of the plaintiffs, went up in appeal. The low...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »