Allahabad Court November 1944 Judgments
Chaudhari Padam Singh Vs. Munwar Chandra Raj Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All144
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit instituted on the basis of a pronote for Rs. 10,169. The pronote in question was executed on 23rd January 1937. The plaintiff-appellant claimed a total amount of Rs. 11,965. In resisting the suit the defendant, who is now the sole respondent in this appeal, pleaded that he was an agriculturist and entitled to relief under Sections 32 and 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act. He alleged that it was the duty of the plaintiff-appellant to maintain a correct account of the transaction in question and to send a copy of that account to him and his failure to do so made the plaintiff liable to lose his interest and his costs. He further pleaded that under Section 39, Agriculturists' Relief Act, the plaintiff was bound to give a copy of the pronote in question to the defendant and his failure to do so made him liable to the penalty provided by Sub-section (3) of that section which runs as follows:No interest shall accrue on any loan until a co...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Mt. Bitton
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All227
Sinha, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession and mesne profits with a declaration that the sale of 15th January 1912 granted by Mt. Radhi of the house in dispute, was invalid. The plaintiff is the daughter of Mt. Radhi. The facts are briefly these. One Sucha Sahu carried on a flourishing grain business. He died on 28th March 1904 leaving a widow, Mt. Radhi, a son, Bachcha, and a daughter, Mt. Bittan. The son died soon after the father, on 7th July 1904. On 26th September 1911 Mt. Radhi purchased a house from one Mb. Dilasi for a sum of Rs. 398-12-0. On 15th January 1912, that is within less than four months of the purchase, Mt. Radhi sold it to a man named Bhagwan Das for a sum of Rs. 499. This Bhagwan Das, it must be borne in mind, was a servant or, to use the words of the learned Counsel for the appellant, a trusted servant of the family. The lady died on 23rd May 1935 and the present suit by the daughter was instituted on 19th May 1938.2. The sal...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mohd. Fazalur Rahman Vs. Nand Kishore Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All140
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over plots Nos. 25 and 26 of abadi plot No. 372 of Mouza Sidhari and for demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants. The plaintiff also prayed for a perpetual injunction. The case with which the plaintiff came to Court was this : Sidhari was an agricultural village and he was the sole zamindar of the plots in dispute. The defendants, according to him, were mere ryots. Plot No. 25 had a house belonging to one Ramphal and 26. had one belonging to Bansi. Ramphal died issueless and his house in plot No. 25 fell into ruins. The house in plot No. 26 also fell into ruins and Bansi took up his residence elsewhere. He alleged that the defendants were making unlawful constructions on the strength of a sale deed executed by Bansi in respect of both these plots. This sale was made on 4th August 1937. The plaintiff claimed that, as the village in dispute was an agricultural village, the transfer was a bad ...
Tag this Judgment!Achuta Nand Tewari and ors. Vs. Chandrabali Nath Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1946All142
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and has arisen out of, what is in effect, a suit for contribution. There was a man named Sital Nath Tewari. The suit was instituted by Sripat Nath Tewari and Rama Kant Nath Tewari sons of Raghunandan Tewari and Achuta Nand Tewari and Chabi Nath Tewari sons of Shyam Saran Nath Tewari against six persons, Chandrabali Nath, Mt. Sorja, Jarbandhan Nath Tewari, Brij Bhukan Nath Tewari, Ram Kishore and Jugal Kishore Tewari. The facts of the case are complicated, but are briefly these. The family, on 1st March 1927, acquired certain property under a sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 2195. They had not the necessary funds. They, therefore, raised a sum of Rs. 1000 on 28th February 1927, by means of three promissory notes for payment to the vendor. Part of the sale consideration was Rs. 1325 which was due to the family itself under a usufructuary mortgage. It had, therefore, to pay a further sum of Rs. 870. Rupees 800 were paid out of the consideration received ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailashi Vs. Shankar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All164
Malik, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for partition filed by Kailashi, son of Ram Chander, minor, under the guardianship of his mother, Mt. Ram Dulari, against the defendants, Shankar and Ram Dayal, brothers of Ram Chander: and uncles of the minor. Plaintiff's case was that his grandfather, Bhagwanta, died in the year 1937 and his father, Ram Chander, died in the year 1920 and that Bhagwanta with his sons and grandson formed a joint Hindu family. If the family was joint plaintiff's share on partition on the date of suit was one-third, according to Hindu law. The plaintiff claimed partition of his one-third share and further claimed mesne profits from August 1937 when the plaintiff was excluded from the enjoyment of the property. Defendants' case was that Bhagwanta did not inherit any property from his father and whatever property was acquired by him was his self-acquired property. The defendants further alleged that certain items included in the plaint were the personal prop...
Tag this Judgment!Jiwan Das and anr. Vs. Sahu Sarju Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All299
Braund, J.1. This is one of four connected appeals from the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Mirzapur in suits in?which the plaintiff, who carries on business at Mirzapur under the firm name of Jagdish Prasad Satish Prasad, has sued the partners of a firm called Prag Das Gobind Das, which also carried on business at Mirzapur, until it was adjudicated insolvent on a petition in the Calcutta High Court filed on 26th April 1938. The Official Assignee of the property of the insolvent defendant firm was made a defendant to the suit, and is the present appellant. The plaintiff, Sahu Sarju Prasad, who, as I have said, carried on business in the name of Jagdish Prasad Satish Prasad, also carried on a separate business at Mirzapur in his own individual name. In the course of one or other of these businesses the plaintiff lent the insolvent defendants various sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 49,302-4.0 which are the subject-matter of this particular suit. It appears that th...
Tag this Judgment!Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Governor-general in Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR480(All)
BRAUND, J. - This is an application under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, made in the winding-up of the Shiromani Sugar Mills, Ltd., in liquidation.The Company prior to its winding-up carried on business as the proprietors of Sugar Mills at Khalilabad in the Basti District of the United Provinces. In the course of its business the company is said to have made profits amounting to Rs. 66,407 in the year ending 30th May, 1941, in respect of which it was assessed to income-tax for the year of assessment 1941-42 in the sum of Rs. 18,493-12-0. This assessment was not however, actually made by the Income-tax Office until 25th February, 1943, by which time an order for the compulsory winding-up of the Company had been made on the petition of a debenture holder. The date of the presentation of the petition for winding-up was 26th November, 1941. On 7th April, 1942, the winding-up order was made by this Court. The position, therefore, was that the assessment was actually made by the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All98
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision made by one Mangi Lal who was tried summarily by a Magistrate of the First Class at Muttra for an offence under Rule 81, Sub-section (4), Defence of India Rules and was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. It appears from the record that the summary trial in this case took place as if it was a summons case. An offence under Rule 81, Sub-section (i), Defence of India Rules, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. No provision made by any rule contained in the Defence of India Rules was put before me to show that the definition of a warrant case and a summons case as given in the Criminal Procedure Code has been altered. Now, a warrant case as defined by the Criminal Procedure Code is a case relating to an offence punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months. It is clear therefore that a case relating...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam HusaIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All182
Sinha, J.1. Ghulam Hussain, Dirgaj Singh and Badri Singh have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Sections 120B and 395, Penal Code. They were sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 120B and four years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 395, Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. The story for the prosecution, as appears from the charge to the jury made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is briefly this: On the evening, at about 9 P. M. of 25th February 1943, there was a dacoity in the house of a man, named Ram Das Vaish. This Ram Das Vaish lived at a place called Ajua Bazar in the district of Allahabad. It is said that on or about 22nd February 1943, the accused Ghulam Husain, Sikandar, Zaheer, Dirgaj and Badri, along with certain others, decided at Cawnpore, between themselves, to commit a dacoity at the house of the aforesaid Ram Das. All the accused belong to the city of Cawnpore. Ghulam Hussain is a tailor; Sikande...
Tag this Judgment!Tulshi Ram and ors. Vs. Nek Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All224
Malik, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for sale on the basis of a simple mortgage, dated 19th December 1916 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs relied on an acknowledgment contained in a sale deed, dated 5th December 1928, and pleaded that they had a period of twelve years from that date within which to file the suit. This suit was filed on 30th August 1937 and the plaintiffs' contention was that the suit was well within time. On 19th December 1916, Nek Ram, defendant 1, borrowed a sum of Rs. 3000 on the basis of a simple mortgage from the plaintiffs and mortgaged two villages, Daryaopur and Laharpur. On 22nd August 1928, Cheda Lal, defendant 2, who had a simple money decree against Nek Ram, defendant l, in execution of that decree attached Laharpur, one of the villages included in the mortgage. The property was put to sale in execution of the simple money decree and on 20th June 1929 village Laharpur was purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »