Allahabad Court April 1939 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.
Kamlapat Moti Lal in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR374(All)
This is reference by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66 (2) of the Income Act (XI of 1922) and the main question that arises for consideration relates to the allowance to be made on account of depreciation of certain buildings, machinery etc., in computing the taxable profits of a certain 'Business'. The answer to this question depends on the true interpretation of Section 10(2) (vi) and Section 26(2) of the Act. Section 10 (2) (vi) provides that in computing profits or gains of any business for the purposes of income-tax allowance shall be made 'in respect of depreciation of such buildings, machinery, plant, or furniture being the property of the assessee, a sum equivalent to such percentage on the original cost thereof to the assessee as may in any case or class of cases be prescribed.' Section 26 (2) enacts that 'where at the time of making an assessment under Section 23, it is found that the person carrying on any business, profession or vocation has been succeeded in suc...
Mt. Ram Kali and anr. Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All586
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiffs-respondents for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with them in their right of way over a passage described in the plaint. The plaintiffs' case was that this passage had been in use for more than 50 years and they as residents near the temple were entitled to use it. The defendants contended that they had no right of way and the suit was not maintainable. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the passage has existed for about 50 years and has been used by the Hindu public in general for this period. They decreed the suit. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that a right of way, such as is claimed in this suit, cannot be acquired by a section of the public. His argument is that a public way can only be acquired by dedication, which should be made to the whole public. This argument is without force because the present s...
Sri Thakur Gatasran Narayanji Maharaj Vs. Ghanshiam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All533
Collister, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal which arises out of execution proceedings. It appears that in 1931 the appellant instituted a suit against the respondents for arrears of rent (Suit No. 6 of 1931). The defendants pleaded that they wore not tenants under the Agra Tenancy Act and therefore the suit was not competent, but this plea did not prevail with the Court and the suit was decreed. There was no appeal against that decree, which accordingly became final. Subsequently, the decree-holder put his decree into execution and sought the ejectment of the respondents. The respondents again raised the same plea which they had taken at the trial, and the executing Court found in their favour and dismissed the application for their ejectment by an order dated 28th November 1932. The decree-holder thereupon appealed to the District Judge, and the latter found that the respondents were liable to ejectment. He accordingly allowed tho appeal. This was on 8th November 1933. There was ...
Kuber Singh Vs. Jai Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All618
Bennet, J.1. The plaintiff brought a pre-emption suit and in his plaint he omitted to say in what mahal the property which he desired to pre-empt was situated. He mentioned at the end of the plaint seven mauzas and one patti in those seven mauzas and in para. 2 of the plaint he stated that the plaintiff and defendant 4 Mt. Hubraji Kunwar, the alleged vendor, were co-sharers in and zamindars of Mauza Naikdeh. Kuber Singh, defendant 1, one of the alleged vendees, pleaded in para. 18:The defendant is an exproprietary tenant in mauza Rasulpur. Accordingly the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption on this ground as well.2. On this pleading the trial Court framed issue 2:Whether the defendant is an exproprietary tenant in the mahal in question and hence the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption is not maintainable3. On this issue the trial Court found:Defendant 1 is exproprietary tenant in village Rasulpur. There are several pattis in village Easul-pur. The defendant's exproprietary tenancy is in...
Mir Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All615
Verma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, affirming a decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in that district. The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 344 principal, and Rs. 56 interest, total Rs. 400, as theka money under Section 132, Agra Tenancy Act, 3 of 1926. The Courts below have granted a decree for the recovery of Rs. 323 on account of principal with past interest at 12 per cent, par annum and pendente lite and future interest at 3J per cent, per annum. The appellant is the owner of the zamindari share in question. On 20th March 1930 he borrowed Rs. 2000 from the plaintiff respondent and executed a deed of mortgage in his favour. In this deed the transaction is stated to be a usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagor states that he had put the mortgagee in possession. The deed however authorizes the mortgagee to demand his mortgage money at any time and confers on him the power to realize...
Bhola Nath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All567
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. These are four connected revision applications arising out of the same judgment and can therefore be conveniently disposed of together. Bola Nath, Bakshi Ram, Salig Ram and Debi Das, applicants, were tried in the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Dehra Dun along with several other persons. The accused persons were charged with having committed offences contrary to Sections 408, 417, 120-B, 467 and 471, I.P.C. Eleven accused persons were sent up for trial before the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Two of them were acquitted by him and he found that the case was proved against the remaining nine accused who were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. These convicted persons preferred appeals against their convictions and sentences which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. He accepted the appeals of Narendra Nath and Gur Dat Singh. In the case of Sri Kishen he confirmed his conviction but reduce...
Hakim MoIn UddIn Vs. Sheikh Abdus Samad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All599
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for injunction. It appears that the defendant applied to the Municipal Board for permission to install a flour mill in a certain building, and permission was granted on certain conditions. The building in question adjoins the plaintiff's house, and the latter appealed against the order of the Municipal Board, but his appeal was disallowed. Thereafter he instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises. The plaintiff's case was that his house had been cracked by the vibrations from the mill and had become uninhabitable on this account and also on account of the smoke and noise attendant on the working of the mill, and the plaintiff's health had been adversely affected. One of the pleas in defence was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The trial Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 321, U.P. Municipalities Act. On appeal...
Ram Sarup Singh and anr. Vs. Mohan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All672
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by defendant 1, Ram Sarup Singh, and defendant 2, Udit Singh, against the ?decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs. At the conclusion of the arguments in this case, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents orally stated that plaintiff 2, Bikaram Singh, had died after the decree of the learned Single Judge, the date of death being 7th November 1938, and complained that his legal representatives had not been brought on the record. We think that the matter should have been the subject of an application in writing if learned Counsel desired to bring it to our notice, but it appears to be sufficient to observe that the legal representatives of Bikaram Singh are apparently his two brothers, plaintiff 1, Mohan Singh, and plaintiff 3, Sat Narain Singh, and as they are already on the record no further steps appear to be required. It is not asserted that these Hindu brothers were separate. The plainti...
Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All483
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order passed by the Court below dismissing his application for execution on the ground that it was not within limitation. The decree-holder obtained a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtor which was made final on 29th April 1933. The application for execution was made on 8th August 1936. It will be seen that it was made more than three years after the data of the final decree. In his application for execution the decree-holder gave his reasons for claiming that his application was within limitation. The decree-holder stated that he went to Court to make his application for execution on 27th April 1936, but learnt that the judgment-debtor had made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, on that very day. The decree-holder therefore considered it un-necessary to make an application for execution. It is alleged that later on, on 14th July 1936, the judgment-debtor got his application and the proce...
Ram Bharose Vs. BaramdIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All584
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for the recovery of joint possession to the extent of a moiety of the plots described in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendants on several grounds. The Court of first instance decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff now comes to this Court in appeal. It appears from the finding of the lower Appellate Court which is not seriously disputed before me by the respondents that the parties are cosharers to the extent of one moiety in khata khewat No. 18. It follows therefore that the plaintiff was fully entitled to enjoy possession of the plots in dispute to the extent of his share. It further appears from the finding of the Court below that five of the plots in dispute namely, 275/1, 275/2, 275/3, 266/1 and 266/2 are in possession of the defendants as mortgagees. The plaintiff's suit with respect to these plots is premature and was rightly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »