Allahabad Court January 1944 Judgments
Suraj NaraIn Vs. Seth Jhabbu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All114
Mathur, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants, against the judgment of the Civil Judge of Mirzapur, dated 1st June 1938. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit against the defendant-appellant and certain other persons, alleging that they were partners of a firm, named Jagannath Prasad Sahu, and claimed Rs. 4907-13-0, as due on account of dealings in shellac between the parties. The defendant-appellant pleaded that he was not a partner in the firm of Jagannath Prasad Sahu and was not liable for any money due from that firm, but the learned Civil Judge held that he was a partner and passed a decree against defendant-appellant and the assets of Jagannath Prasad.2. The defendant Suraj Narain has appealed and the sole point that has to be determined in this appeal is whether Suraj Narain appellant was a partner with Jagannath Prasad in the firm called Jagannath Prasad Sahu.3. On behalf of the plaintiffs copies of income-tax assessment orders for the years 1932-33, 1934-35 and...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Vs. Seth Jhabhu Lal and Others.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR13(All)
MATHUR, J. - This is an appeal by one of the defendants, against the judgment of the Civil Judge of Mirzapur, dated 1st June 1938. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit against the defendant-appellant and certain other persons, alleging that they were partners of a firm, named Jagannath Prasad Sahu and claimed Rs. 4,907-13-0, as due on account of dealing in shellac between the parties. The defendants-appellant pleaded that he was not a partner in the firm of Jagannath Prasad Sahu and was not liable for any money due from that firm; but the learned Civil Judge held that he was a partner and passed a decree against defendant-appellant and the assets of Jagannath Prasad.The defendant Suraj Narain has appealed and the sole point that has to be determined in this appeal is whether Suraj Narain, appellant, was a partner with Jagannath Prasad in the firm called Jagannath Prasad Sahu.On behalf of the plaintiffs copies of income-tax assessment orders for the years 1932-33, 1934-35 and 193...
Tag this Judgment!Bans NaraIn Vs. Mt. Chandrani Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All130
Mathur, J.1. These are two appeals against one and the same judgment of the learned Civil Judge of Cawnpore, dated 30th April 1940. Appeal No. 190 of 1940 has been filed by the plaintiff, while the other appeal No. 229 of 1940 has been filed by the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff Mt. Chandrani Kunwar brought a suit for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of the zemindari property, comprising 12 annas in mohal Bidhauna, tahsil and pargana Ghatanpur, District Cawnpore, and that the sale deed dated 3rd February 1917 executed by Syed Mohammad Abdulla and others, in favour of her father Misri Lal, was fictitious and be-nami and was executed for her benefit. The allegations of the plaint was that she was married to Rameshwar Prasad alias Munna Lal as his third wife, while she was very young and only 14 years of age, and that her husband, in order to provide for herself and her children purchased the said property, with his money but as a litigation was going on in the...
Tag this Judgment!Nageshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Chhotey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All91
Allsop, J.1. We have before us two connected appeals, one of which purports to be a first appeal from an order, No. 90 of 1941 and the other a regular first appeal, No. 65 of 1942. The two appeals arise out of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The applicant under the Act was Thakur Nageshwar Prasad Singh. He was required under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act to give a list of his property including property which was liable to attachment and sale under Section 60, Civil P.C., 1908. He mentioned in his list that he was entitled to receive an allowance of Rs. 500 a month from certain trustees appointed under the will of his mother's father but appended a note that this property was not liable to attachment under the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C., because it amounted to a right to future maintenance. It appears that part of the landed property belonging to the applicant had been mortgaged to Rai Bahadur Chhotey Lal. The application under the Encumbered Estates Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. L. Kedarnath Murarka and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All113
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B of the amended Court-fees Act. By this application the applicant seeks a declaration under Sub-section (2) of that section that the proper court-fee has not been paid on the plaint in a suit pending in the Court of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Cawnpore, and a determination of the amount of the deficiency.2. In this suit the plaintiffs admittedly prayed for two reliefs : (1) that it might be declared that the office-bearers declared duly elected at the meeting presided over by Mr. Kasera and not defendants 1 to 6 were the duly elected office-bearers of the Cawnpore Kapra Committee, and (2) that an injunction might be issued restraining the defendants to act as elected bearers of the committee. The plaintiff's valued the relief for declaration at Rs. 100 and the relief for injunction at Rs. 5100 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 30 on the relief for declaration under Article 17(iii)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›