Allahabad Court March 1943 Judgments
Chitar Singh Vs. Th. Roshan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All301
ORDERCollister, J.1. On 20th March 1926, the opposite party's transferor sold certain property to the applicants for Rs. 28,000. A balance of Rs. 7360 remained unpaid and for this the applicants on the same date executed a mortgage in favour of the vendor in respect to a portion of the property sold. Ultimately the opposite party sued on his mortgage, and his suit was decreed. Subsequently the applicants applied under Section 8, Debt Redemption Act, but their application has been dismissed. They have now come in revision to this Court; but I am informed that one of them has since compromised the matter with the opposite party.2. The point for decision is whether the sum of Rs. 7320 remaining due under the sale deed was or was not a loan within the meaning of Section 2 (9), Debt Redemption Act. I think there can be no doubt that it was not. It was the unpaid balance of the sale consideration and cannot be regarded as a loan, whether technically or substantially. Learned Counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Das Munni Lal Vs. Secretary of State for IndiA.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1943
Reported in: [1945]13ITR356(All)
ORDERThis is an application under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act by an assessee named Lala Dwarka Prasad. The assessment was made in the year 1937-38 and was in respect of the profit of 1936-37 arising out of a Burmah Shell agency business, which is being carried on in the name Misri Lal Dwarka Prasad.It is necessary to state certain facts. There was a banker named Lala Munni Lal, who had two sons, Lala Bisheshar Das, who died in 1917 and Lala Misri Lal, who died on the 20th February 1935. Lala Bisheshar Das had two sons, one of whom was Lala Bankey Lal, and the applicant is a son of the latter. Lala Misri Lal had a daughter by name Mst. Shyama Bibi and she had a son by name Amar Nath. Admittedly the family of Lala Bisheshar Das and Lala Misri Lal was originally joint. It is said that there has not been a separation, but it is not denied before us that the family was still joint in the year 1935-36. The agency business was started by Lala Misri Lal as long ago as 1913, and...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kesho Das Vs. Manzoor Hasan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All334
Yorke, J.1. This is a creditor's first appeal from the judgment of the Special Judge first grade, of Meerut under Section 14, Encumbered Estates Act. On 24th October 1921 a simple mortgage was executed by Syed Hasan, his wife Mt. Mustafai Begum and one Ibne Hasan, who is said to be the brother-in-law of Syed Hasan, in favour of the present appellant, Lala Kesho Das, for a total consideration of Rs. 16,000 in respect of certain property in village La war Khas in the Meerut district. The document did not state the shares of the three mortgagors in this property but it did contain a long list of the old debts which went to make up the sum total of Rs. 16,000. There was no cash consideration for the mortgage, the whole of the consideration being made up of old debts, credit for which was allowed in the deed. In the year 1980 the mortgagee Kesho Das, instituted suit No. 94 of 1930 for recovery of the amount due on this mortgage. By that date, Mt. Mustafai Begam had died and Syed Hasan was s...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Sajjad Vs. Ramlagan Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All284
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The opposite party, Bam Lagan who is a minor, brought a suit for recovering a certain amount as his wages due from the defendant applicant. This suit was brought under the guardianship of his own father, Sadaphal. During the pendency of that suit, an application was made to the Court signed by the defendant-applicant and Sadaphal in his capacity as the guardian of the minor plaintiff Ram Lagan. In this application Sadaphal agreed to appoint one Mr. Man Bahadur Singh as an arbitrator for the purpose of deciding the matter in dispute in the suit and he further agreed that Mr. Man Bahadur Singh will have the power to base his decision either upon a public inquiry or upon a private inquiry. It may be noted here that Mr. Man Bahadur Singh was at that time representing the defendant-applicant as his counsel. It is really surprising that this glaring fact should not have been noticed by th...
Tag this Judgment!Nizakat Ali Vs. Shaukat Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All300
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C, by a defendant. The plaintiff, Shaukat Husain sued to recover from the defendant as lambardar profits of the years 1344, 1345 and 1346 Fasli. The plaintiff was a person who according to his own allegations had taken a transfer of a share in a village from a cosharer by a sale deed dated 12th June 1939, that is in the currency of the Fasli year 1346. By the sale deed it was contracted that the vendee was assigned the profits of the years 1344, 1345 and 1346, although the cause of action for recovery of the profits of 1346 would only arise on 1st August 1939, that is to say the cause of action had not arisen and that cause of action would automatically accrue to the vendee in respect of the profits of 1346 in his capacity as transferee cosharer. As regards the profits of the two earlier years it is evident that the position of the plaintiff, assuming that his sale deed was valid, would be different from that of an ord...
Tag this Judgment!Dalganjan Singh Vs. Jangi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All298
Plowden, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Civil Judge of Budaun, dated 17th September 1941. The plaintiff brought a suit for the possession of a house in the village abadi with the allegation that he is the owner and allowed defendant 1 to live in it as a licensee about five years ago. The defendants have colluded amongst themselves and in order to defeat his title, defendant 1 allowed defendants 2 and 3 who are brothers to bring a suit against him. It was during the pendency of this suit that the present suit was filed. The Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit but the learned Civil Judge dismissed it in toto. The plaintiff's case was that he was connected with Girand Singh who died about 60 years ago, leaving a widow, Mt. Dhanno, who continued to live in this house and on her death the plaintiff took possession of it and only five years ago allowed defendant 1 to live in it. Defendants 2 and 3 who are zamindars say that their father took possession of the house presumabl...
Tag this Judgment!Khacheru Mal Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All296
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and raises a point of some interest. The plaintiff-applicant sued to recover Rs. 180 on foot of a bond dated 24th June 1988. The only issue raised was: Is the plaintiff a money-lender? Upon this the learned Judge found that the plaintiff was not proved to be a money-lender, but that Section 5, U.P. Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act (Act 10 of 1937), was not applicable in the case of debts incurred after that Act came into force and therefore the suit was barred by limitation. The section provides as follows:In computing the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or any other law for the 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 dur...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Nath Prasad Vs. Sarjoo Nonia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All220
Collister, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of three of my colleagues. I agree with the finding of my brother Dar and my brother Mathur that it was open to the plaintiff-appellant at the trial of the suit to prove the alleged loan by such evidence, including the receipt, as may have been available to him ; and I am in general agreement with the reasoning of my brother Mathur as regards the appeal which is before us for decision. Where as here and as usually, the terms of the contract--by which I mean all its substantial terms--have not been embodied in the promissory note and where, as here, the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence by reason of Section 35, Stamp Act, it is open to the plaintiff to prove the terms of the contract. The defendant will of course be entitled to rebut the evidence so adduced and establish that there was in fact no loan; but if he fails to do so, the plaintiff will ordinarily succeed on the proved contract of loan.2. In the case b...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All271
Plowden, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Benares dated 30th June 1942. The prosecution case is that about sunset on 5th February 1942, four men attacked Munnu Teli near village Sanghti and a fifth man, Shyam Sunder instigated them. Munnu was severely injured but was able to make the first information report at Alinagar thana at 10 P.M. He was sent with Bisheshar Narth constable to the hospital but at 4 A.M. Bisheshar Nath returned with the dead body, reporting that Munnu had died on the way. The medical evidence shows contused wounds on the left and right sides of the head and fracture and swelling of the left hand which caused great loss of blood and other injuries. There was no fracture of the skull. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage but not to any fracture of the head. The accused deny all knowledge of this occurrence and from the prosecution evidence it appears that Munnu was unarmed. So prima facie the case is one of murder. Without giving an...
Tag this Judgment!Muslim Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Ateeq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All289
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant here was the plaintiff in the Court below. The suit was brought by the liquidators of the Muslim Bank of India Ltd., to recover a certain amount on the basis of a pronote from the opposite party, Mohammad Ateeq. This pronote was executed on 25th November 1937. Under this agreement, Mohammad Ateeq obtained a loan of Rs. 800. It appears that one Syed Husain stood as surety for Mohammad Ateeq and gave a letter of guarantee to the plaintiff bank. On 17th February 1938, Mohammad Ateeq paid a sum of Rupees 125 to the bank. This payment is proved by a voucher which is signed by Mohammad Ateeq himself. It was not specifically stated in this voucher that the payment was either towards interest as such or towards principal. It has, however, to be borne in mind that the total amount of interest due upon the loan was only Rs. 10-11-6 on 17th February 1938. It is evident, therefore, that even...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »