Allahabad Court November 1944 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.
Syed Aijaz Husain, Debtor and anr. Vs. Rameshwar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All235
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The two appellants, Syed Aijaz Husain and Muhammad Azhar Husain Khan jointly executed a promissory note on 1st September 1934 in favour of Rameshwar Prasad. They promised to pay a sum of Rupees 365 with interest at 2 per cent. per mensem. One of them, Syed Aijaz Husain, made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, on 27th October 1936 and in that application and the subsequent written statement required by the Act he admitted his liability for the payment of the sum due on the basis of the promissory note. The other signatory, Muhammad Azhar Husain Khan, was made a party in order that the liability for the payment of the money should be apportioned between the two signatories. The learned special Judge held that Syed Aijaz Husain was the principal debtor and Muhammad Azhar Husain Khan was merely a surety. He therefore, decided to, pass a decree under the Encumbered Estates Act for the f...
Shiromani Sugar Mills, Ltd., in Liquidation, (Through J.C. Mukerji and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All354
Braund, J.1. This is an application under the Companies Act, 1913, made in the winding up of the Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited 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 for the sum of Rupees 18,493-12-0. This assessment was not, however, actually made by the Income-tax Officer 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 December 1941 a provisional liquidator had been appointed and on 17th April 1942 the winding up order was made by this Court. The position, ther...
Shiam Lal and ors. Vs. Mukat Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All233
Malik, J. 1. This appeal is confined only to a question of the number of instalments to be granted to the defendants to pay up the amount due. The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,212, on the basis of a promissory note dated 3lst October 1936 executed by the defendant, Shiam Lal, in plaintiffs' favour. The other defendants are Shiam Lal's sons and grandsons. The defendants were agriculturists on the date of the suit and on the date of the loan and claimed relief under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 'When the suit was filed on 4th November 1939 the Agriculturists' Belief Act was in force. The said Act, however, was repealed by the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, which came into force on 1st January 1941. The learned Civil Judge passed the decree on 17th April 1941 and held that Section 3, Agriculturists' Relief Act, had been repealed by the U.P. Debt Redemption Act and the defendants were, therefore, not entitled to instalments under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. He, how...
Nasir UddIn Vs. Lala Baboo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All197
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 in a suit brought by the plaintiff, respondent 1 for possession of a plot of land, No. 245, situated in Mohalla Allah Dad, Lohamandi, Agra, for the recovery of a certain sum of money as mesne profits and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. Defendant 2 in the suit was the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. It has been impleaded as respondent 2 in this appeal. Put briefly, the facts are these : By an instrument dated 14th November 1939, the Government purported to give a case of this plot of land to the appellant. On 19th December 1939, the plaintiff-respondent issued a notice to the appellant informing him that he (the plaintiff) was the owner of the plot in question and that the Government had no right to grant a lease of that plot to the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent sent a notice to the Government also. On 2nd January 1940, the plaintiff-respondent ...
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Mt. Hulasiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All111
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, Amended Court-fees Act. By means of this application the applicant seeks a declaration under Sub-section (3) of that section that the proper court-fee has not been paid on the plaint in a suit filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad. If such a declaration be made it would obviously be necessary for the Court to determine the amount of deficiency in the court-fee. The plaintiff who is the opposite party in this revision instituted a suit specifically under Order 21, It. 103, Civil P.C. for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of one-third share of the house in suit and was also in possession thereof and that defendants 1 and 2 were not entitled to eject her in pursuance of their decree No. 408 of 1941 of the Court of the Munsif, Moradabad. The following reliefs were prayed for in this suit : (a) A declaration may be made to the effect that the plaintiff is owner...
Deo Rai and ors. Vs. Arti Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All174
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage brought under the provisions of Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, 27 of 1934. The suit was instituted on 29th July 1941. The mortgage in question is dated 1st May 1914. The principal money mentioned in the deed is Rs. 8824-10-0. It is made up of a sum of Rs. 4866-10-0 payable by the mortgagors on account of their shares in three previous mortgages and a sum of Rs. 3958 borrowed in cash by the mortgagors on the date on which the mortgage deed in question was executed. The mortgagors were, Arti Rai, Shyam Rathi Rai and Sahdeo Rai, who are respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal, and three others named Lachhmi Rai, Bishundhari Rai and Mt. Lagmani Kunwar, who are now represented by respondents 4 to 6 in this appeal.2. One of these mortgagors and the predecessors-in-interest of the rest had executed three previous mortgages, the first one on 7th May 1889, the second on 28th May 1901, and the ...
Badri Prasad and anr. Vs. Bhartu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All119
ORDERMalik, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. On 25th November 1932 an instalment bond for Rs. 480 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs' father Mathura Prasad. It was pro. vided in the bond that the amount would be repayable in half yearly instalments of Rs. 30 each beginning from 15th February 1934 and that in default of payment of any instalment it would be open to the creditor to file a suit for the realisation of the whole of the amount then remaining due with interest at He. 1 per cent, per mensem. The defendant paid the first instalment and after that he committed a default and did not pay any other instalment. On 11th May 1937 the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the instalments that had, fallen due and had not been paid up to 15th February 1937. The plaint of that suit is before me and it does not mention the default clause at all. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the amount was payable in sixteen hal...
Lochan Singh and ors. Vs. Mauji Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All154
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 45, Encumbered Estates Act, arising out of an application made under Section 4 of that Act by the present appellants on 9th September 1935. The application was followed in due course on 15th May 1936, by a written statement under Section 8. The only property mentioned in the application as well as the written statement was 642 bighas odd out of 706 bighas odd in Mauza Himmatpur, Mahal Thakur Tikam Singh, Khewat No. 1. Several creditors were named in the application and one of them, namely, Mauji Ram, respondent 1 in this appeal, filed a claim under Section 10 (1) of the Act in which he alleged that four groves, three houses and a small revenue free grant had not been mentioned by the applicants in their application. The Court then issued a notice under Section 11 of the Act which provides thatthe Special Judge shall publish a notice in the manner specified in Section 9 specifying the property mentioned by the applicant under Section 8 or by a...
Maiyan Dalip Rajeshwari Debi Vs. Sri 5 Mohan Bikram Sah Alias Ram Raja ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All409
Allsop, J. 1. The subject-matter of the suit which has given rise to this appeal is the half of a sum of Rs. 6,33,796-13-2, the total amount of sixteen fixed deposits in the Benares branches of the Imperial Bank of India and the Allahabad Bank. The fixed deposits receipts admittedly state that the money has been received from the plaintiff, Maiyan Dalip Rajeshwari Debi, and her sister, Rani Chatter Kumari Debi (hereafter referred to as the Rani), and is repayable to either of them or to the survivor. The plaintiff assumed that she was entitled to one half of this money and instituted the suit in order to obtain a declaration that she was entitled to the other half after the death of the Rani because the latter had already made a gift of her share to the plaintiff, or in the alternative because the money was the absolute property (stridhan) of the Rani and the plaintiff was in law entitled to inherit such property. The defendant, Mohan Bikram Shah, alias Ram Raja (hereafter referred to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›