Allahabad Court September 1938 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Munni Singh Vs. Collector of Benares and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All28
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated 27th February 1937, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Benares in the following circumstances : The respondents obtained a preliminary decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage against the appellant Munni Singh and made an application for getting that decree made final. The appellant appeared in Court and put in an application to the effect that subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree he had paid a sum of Rs. 400 to an agent of the respondents. The Court entertained the application and fixed a date for hearing it. The appellant not being present on that date, the Court dismissed his application with the following orders:This is an objection to the passing of the final) decree. It is alleged that Rs. 400 was paid to the mukhtar-i-am of the decree-holder and that tha-account is wrong. Decree-holder's mukhtar denies-that any money was paid to him. As to accounts it is pleaded that in the application Rs. 36,019-2-0...
Kanwalnen Hamir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmer-merwarA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR675(All)
HARRIES, J. - This is a reference under Sec. 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ajmere-Merwara.The assessees in this case are a joint Hindu family carrying on business in the name of Kanwalnen Hamir Singh. The Head-quarters of this business in situate at Ajmere, but the firm has branches in other places, both in British India and in Native States, where money-lending and other forms of business are carried on. The accounts of this firm have been for a long period maintained from Dewali to Dewali and the assessment in question is for the financial year 1932-33.A return of the income of this business for the year ending 10-11-1931 was submitted on September 28, 1932, for the purpose of the assessment to income-tax for the year 1932-33. In this return the assessable income was shown as Rs. 1,54,601-6-7 and along with the return was submitted as Profit and Loss Account which is printed as Appendix F at p. 26 of the paper book.This return was n...
Damodar Das Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All106
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a first appeal brought by R.S. Damodar Das, advocate, against a decree of the learned District Judge of Meerut in a land acquisition reference. The appeal is similar in some ways to F.A. No. 166 and F.A. No. 167 of 1935 decided at the same time by this Bench. But in the present case on page 7, line 44 appellant has stated:I do not ask for compensation for the land. I do not know if the land belongs to the Government.2. In the other appeals the appellants had claimed that the land belonged to them. The present appellant bought the bungalow No. 162 in Meerut Cantonments on 21st November 1920 by a sale deed from Mt. Lalan printed on page 25, where it is stated at lines 20-23 that the vendor hassold the bungalow aforesaid together with the boundaries and rights and appurtenances relating thereto and rights and interests in electricity, etc., except the land belonging to Government.3. In spite of these admissions the appellant has claimed in the lower Court on pag...
Badri Prasad Vs. Ram NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All157
Collister, J.1. This is a reference by the Small Cause Court Judge at Benares under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The suit was instituted on 29th April 1938 against a certain person who was presumably an agriculturist upon the foot of a promissory note. The promissory note was executed on 20th January 1935 and the period of limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act had expired on 20th January 1938; but the plaintiff contended that the suit was within time by reason of the provisions of Section 5, Local Act No. 10 of 1937. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as follows:(1) In computing the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908, or any other law for this time being in force, for (a) the institution of a suit in a Civil Court against an agriculturist for money or for foreclosure or sale in enforcement of a mortgage, and (b) the execution of such decree as is referred to in Section 3, and not covered by Section 6, the period during which this Act shall remain in ...
Alliance Bank of Simla Ltd. Vs. F.B. Powel
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All651
Mulla, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the decree-holder, the Alliance Bank of Simla, Ltd. in liquidation through the liquidators. The appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur in the course of an execution proceeding allowing an objection made by the respondent F. B. Powel that he had been wrongly impleaded by the appellant decree-holder as a representative of the judgment-debtor. The relevant facts of the case may briefly be stated as fol. Lows : The appellant held a simple mortgage from one M.G. Powel. It is not disputed that this mortgage was made prior to 1st March 1928. One Mohammad Ismail obtained a simple money decree against the mortgagor on 23rd January 1928 and in execution of that decree attached the mortgagor's interest in the property which was the subject of the mortgage in favour of the appellant. On 1st May 1928, the appellant filed a suit on the foot of the mortgage without impleading Mohammad Ismail as a party there...
Rajeshwar Dube Vs. Ram Sanmukh Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All6
Misra, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand passed by the Civil Judge of Jaunpur in an appeal from the decision of the Additional Munsif of Jaunpur, dated 6th January 1937. Jagdeo, father of the plaintiffs, Earn Sanmukh Misir and others, made a mortgage in favour of Rajeshwar Dube, defendant, in the year 1928, mortgaging certain joint family property. The mortgagee sued for mortgagee possession of the property. The only defendant to the suit was Jagdeo, mortgagor. One of the pleas which Jagdeo raised in that case was that he was representing the joint family of himself and his sons and that the mortgage was without legal necessity. The trial Court of the Munsif framed an issue about legal necessity and found that except for a sum of Rs. 15 the mortgage was for legal necessity. In the end the suit for mortgagee possession was decreed. Subsequently, the sons of the mortgagor brought a suit for a declaration that the mortgage made by their father was not binding upon ...
Manni Lal Vs. Gauri Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All655
Misra, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Cawnpore in a suit by the lambardar to recover haq chaharum from the mortgagor of a house against whom a final decree for foreclosure was passed. The custom entitling the lambardar to haq chaharum in the case of sales of houses is recorded in the wajibularz of the village in these words:Jo makan reyaya farokht ho jata hai to eh chaharum hissa zamindar ho milta hai.2. The trial Court held that this custom governs only private or voluntary sales and not involuntary or court sales. The lower Appellate Court held otherwise. The matter is practically concluded by authority. So far back as 1867, a Pull Bench of this Court consisting of six Judges held that where by custom the zamindar is entitled to a quarter share of the sale proceeds as his haq zamindari he is entitled to recover it on the occasion of sales either absolute or originally conditional but sub-sequently becoming absolute by foreclosur...
Ragghi and ors. Vs. Nathu Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All638
Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtors, appellants, in an execution case. The only question for determination is one of limitation. Ragghi alias Raghubar, appellant 1, executed a mortgage deed in favour of the deceased father of the decree-holders, respondents. A suit was brought on the basis of that mortgage against Ragghi and his two sons, the other appellants in this appeal. A preliminary decree was passed in due course and it was made final on 10th March 1932. An application for execution of that decree was made against Ragghi and his two sons on 11th November 1935. This was more than three years after the date of the final decree, but limitation was sought to be saved by reason of a payment of Rs. 50 made by Ragghi towards interest on the decree on 17th February 1935. It has been found that Ragghi made the above payment and that he gave a writing in respect of it. The lower Appellate Court in coming to a decision has relied upon the case in Ibrahim v. Jagdish ...
Mangal Chand Vs. Mt. Dulari Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All654
Misra, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor in a case for execution of decree. The decree-holder respondent, Mt. Dulari Bibi, obtained a decree for maintenance against the judgment-debtor appellant from the Court of Munsif, Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh. Under this decree she was awarded main, tenance at Rs. 15 per month, and it was provided that on default in payment of the monthly maintenance the decree-holder would be entitled to realize the arrears by execution of the decree. Some time after the decree was passed, the decree-holder applied to the Court of the Munsif Mohammadabad Gohna to send the decree for axecution to the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, and the decree was accordingly sent to the latter Court as provided by Section 39, Civil P.C. The certificate sent by he Court of the Munsif, Mohammadabad, specified a certain amount as being due under the decree on the date the certificate was sent. The decree-holder filed this certificate in the Court ...
Abdul Waheed Khan and anr. Vs. Ram Bux and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All49
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against a decree paused by the learned Civil Judge of Jaunpur on the basis of an award in the following circumstances : It appears that, during the Muharram in the year 1935, a dispute arose between some Hindu residents of the town of Kheta Sarai and the Muslim population about the route by which the tazia procession had to pass. One Ram Bux owned three houses which lay on that route. All those houses had balconies projecting on the lane underneath. The procession had to pass through that lane, but it appears that the balcony of one of the houses owned by Ram Bux caused an obstruction and the Muslim residents insisted upon that obstruction being removed for the purpose of giving a free passage to the tazias. An apprehension of a breach of the peace arose inconsequence of this dispute and a Police Officer was called to settle it. Ho eventually decided to remove a small portion of the balcony of Ram Bux's ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »