Allahabad Court January 1943 Judgments
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All190
Collister, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to us for decision.Whether a person claiming the benefit of Section 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act, is entitled for the purposes of Section 2(2) (f) of the Act to rely upon the circumstance that he paid no income-tax or that he paid income-tax not exceeding 5 per cent, of his rent for the financial year immediately prior to the suit, or whether/the criterion is whether he was assessed to income-tax for the year in which the loan was advanced or in the year immediately preceding such advance.2. For an appreciation of the point of law which is involved in this reference it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant sued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7644 on foot of a promissory note, which was executed on 15th October 1934 by the defendant-respondent for Rs. 6512 with interest at 10 annas per cent.' per mensem and which was in novation of an earlier promissory note executed by the respondent on 15th November 1931. The d...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Anand Sarup Vs. S. Taiyab Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All279
Allsop, J.1. On 29th November 1885, Khiyali Ram and Kanhai Singh, the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 3 and 4, that is, Sita Ram and Bhajan Lal, executed a document in which they say that they had with the permission of the zamindars built a house on their land and that they had agreed to pay a rent of one anna per year and to give the zamindars an opportunity to buy or take a mortgage of the house if at any time they intended to transfer it by sale or mortgage. The two men and their suceessors-in-interest mortgaged the house to persons other than the zamindars and the house was ultimately put to sale and bought by the mortgagees, that is, by the first two defendants. The plaintiff is one of the zamindars and he instituted the suit for possession of the house upon the allegation that the lease in favour of the successors-in-interest of Khiyali Ram and Kanhai Singh had determined by forfeiture because the title of the zamindars had been denied. He impleaded as defendant 6 the oth...
Tag this Judgment!Ata HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mt. Hukam Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All274
Allsop, J.1. These two appeals arise out of suits in which the plaintiffs sought possession over certain property. The two sets of plaintiffs were the sons respectively of Ghulam Husain and Ala Din, two brothers. Their allegation was that Mt. Bhagirati and Amar Singh executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Misri Lal in the year 1914 and that Misri Lal instituted a suit on the basis of this mortgage and ultimately purchased certain property in execution of a decree. They said that the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint were in fact sold to Misri Lal but that the property mentioned in Schedule 3 was not included in the mortgage or decree or certificate of sale and that Misri Lal wrongly obtained an order of mutation by which it was recorded in the khewat as being in his possession as proprietor. It appears that Misri Lal after obtaining mutation instituted a suit for partition in the year 1929. The plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest raised an objection that...
Tag this Judgment!B. Murari Lal Vs. Chotey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All207
Dar, J.1. These are four appeals against four judgments and decrees, dated 16th September 1940, of the Additional Civil Judge of Moradabad by which he reversed four judgments and decrees, dated 19th January 1940, of an Assistant Collector, First Class, Bijnor, in four suits under Section 221, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926) brought by a lam-bardar for recovery of arrears of revenue against certain cosharers. The plaintiff, Murari Lal, is the lambardar of mahal Surkh 4 biswas of village Gangunagla and appertaining to this mahal is khewat No. 1 which has an area of 97 bighas and 10 biswas and is assessed to a revenue of Rs. 195. The defendants represent four families of butchers in the said village, who on 6th October 1922 purchased two specific plots No. 336 and 334 comprising an area of 5 bighas and 17 biswas. The sale in their favour was made by the then proprietor Benarsi Das for a sum of Rs. 2000. In the settlement of the village, which took place after the sale but before the suit, th...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar and ors. Vs. Sheo Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All196
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit. The sale sought to be pre-empted was effected on 13th May 1935 and was for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 3215. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 2800 was paid in cash to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar and the balance of Rs. 415 was left with the vendees for the discharge of a prior mortgage. The finding of the trial Court was that the consideration entered in the sale deed was the true consideration and there is no controversy about this point in the present appeal.2. There were 13 plaintiffs in the suit. The property sold was in Mohal Khumani, and on the date of the institution of the suit all the 13 plaintiffs were cosharers in Mohal Khumani and the vendees were strangers to that Mohal. There can, therefore, be no doubt that on the date of the institution of the suit all the 13 plaintiffs had a good cause of action and had a right to pre-empt the sale in favour of the vendees. It, however, appears that procee...
Tag this Judgment!Khema Nand Vs. East Indian Rly., Administration Through Divisional Sup ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All243
ORDERHamilton, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Moradabad dismissing an appeal on the ground that under the Payment of Wages Act in the circumstances of this Case no appeal lay. Khemanand, the present applicant, was employed by the E. I. Railway and in the year 1934 he drew wages of Rs. 120 a month but from the month of March he was suspended and on 9th April 1940 he wag given a post the wages of which were Rs. 70. On 2nd April 1941, that is to say almost a year after the order fixing his wages at Rs. 70 he made an application under the Payment of Wages Act. The Magistrate rejected his application on the ground that it was time-barred, not having been made within six months of the date when the new wages of Rs. 70 were fixed. Against this order of the Magistrate, Khemanand went in appeal to the District Judge who held that it was not an order to appeal.2. Appeals are governed by Section 17 and must be preferred within 30 days of the day ...
Tag this Judgment!Governor-general in Council and B. B. and C. I. Railway Administration ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All219
ORDERHamilton, J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant in a Small Cause Court suit. The suit was brought by Ahmad Mahmud Khan against the B. B. and C. I. Railway but owing to the change in the status of the Railway the defendant-appellant has become the Governor General in Council and the B. B. and C. I. Railway Administration through its General Manager at Bombay. The plaintiff sent some goods under two railway receipts. As regards one of the railway receipts there is no suit. The other railway receipt bore the number 36081. It refers to two boxes haberdashery and one box writing slates. The boxes declared to contain haberdashery were opened and they contained, as the plaintiff himself admits, six tins of Ovaltine, 20 tins of Antiflamin and six bottles of hair oil. This hair oil has been called one packet of perfumery by the assistant goods clerk produced by the defendant. Even if it was hair oil and not concentrated scent, it would come within the term 'perfumery'. Ova...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Ram and ors. Vs. Ajodhia Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All210
Mulla, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff's in a suit for ejectment under Section 180, New Tenancy Act (17 of 1939). The dispute in this case relates to a small plot numbered 3647/1 having an area of 1 bigha 3 biswas. This plot is contiguous to another plot numbered 3647/2 which has an area of 2 bighas and 9 biswas. These two plots are sub-divisions of a large plot which at the old settlement was numbered 4019. The two plots are situated in the same mohal but it appears that the mohal was partitioned 15 years or so before the institution of the suit and at that partition the plot in dispute, i. e., 3647/1, was allotted to the plaintiffs, whereas the other plot 3647/2 fell within the share of the defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendant, who is the respondent in this Court, are admittedly cosharers in the mohal. The plaintiffs' case was that they had planted a grove in the plot in dispute some ten years before the institution of the suit but after some years the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›