Allahabad Court December 1924 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.
Firm Ram Gopal-mool Chand Vs. Income Tax Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All403; 87Ind.Cas.797
Walsh, J.1. In this case notice was issued to the Income Tax Commissioner to show cause why he should not state a case. The order was made ex parte on the application of the applicant. In future when the new rule9 come into force the applicant will have to establish a good ground on a point of law before the Court to whom he applies, before notice is issued to the Income-Tax Commissioner at all. The result of the procedure was that the Commissioner had to show cause on the merits and to instruct the Government-Advocate for that purpose, and the hearing was really such as would have taken place if the Commissioner had been required to state a case. In fact, the matter was gone into as though a case had been stated in order to ascertain whether there was a point on which a case could have been stated. In the result the application was dismissed on the ground that it was impossible to frame a question of law on which a case could be stated and on the application of the Government-Advocate...
East Indian Railway Company Vs. Tota Ram Pirbhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All384
Daniels, J.1. This is a second appeal in a case in which a claim against the Railway Company in respect of certain goods consigned to them, has been decreed. The lower Court, following the case of Ghelabai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1821 Bom. 443, has held that it lay, in the first instance, on the Railway to prove the loss of the goods. The Railway tea-dared certain evidence to prove this which the Court below has rejected. The Court below therefore, held that the Railway was not protected by the risk-note B signed by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the Railway first contends that we should not follow the ruling of Ghelabhai Punsi v. East Indian Railway Co. A.I.R. 1821 Bom. 443. That ruling has, however, been followed by this Court in a number of cases of which we may instance Badri Prasad v. G.I.P. Railway : AIR1925All144 and East Indian Railway Co. v. Kishan Lal Tirkha Mal A.I.R. 1924 All. 7. It has also been followed by the Patna High Court in G.I.P. Railway Co....
Ram Sarup Vs. the Arya Samaj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All337
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appeal under the Letters Patent is now confined to the property described as item No. 1 in the plaint which measures over 6 biswas. This property was acquired on the 19th of May, 1911 from one Chandi Prasad in the name of two persons Bishambhar Nath and Ram Saran Das. It now appears that Bishambhar Nath at that time was the Secretary and Ram Saran Das the treasurer of a society called the Arya Samaj of Dbampur. The names of these two persons were entered in the revenue papers. On the 18th of August, 1913 Bishambhar Nath, his brother, Ram Sarup, and Ram Saran Das applied to the Revenue Court for the partition of the property purchased under the sale-deed of the 19th of May, 1911. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that Dr. Baldeo Sahai, who was acting as the manager of the Arya Samaj, also filed certain objections to the partition proceedings. We may note tha...
Shib Charan Das Vs. Kharka and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All346
Ryves, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. He is the owner of a Purwa situated within the Municipality of Meerut. He sued to eject the defendants from three houses on the allegation that the sites of the houses had been let originally to the father of the defendants at a rental of three annas per mensem for them to build on, on the understanding that whenever the plaintiff desired it, the defendants should vacate the land on receiving the price of the materials of the buildings. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land. They said that their predecessor-in-title had acquired the sites from Government. They also pleaded that they had paid no rent to the plaintiff for over 12 years and that if the plaintiff bad any title originally, he had lost it by adverse possession.2. The lower Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the land but that the tenancy was a permanent one and, therefore, decreed the suit only so far as the rent was concerned. The plaintiff...
Ravi Chander Sahai and ors. Vs. Sunder Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All640; 87Ind.Cas.112
Daniels, J.1. There is one grave objection to this application which is for the transfer of a case pending in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, of Hamirpur district to the Court of any other Magistrate in that District. It offends against the rule that this Court will not ordinarily entertain an application for a relief which could equally well be granted by a Subordinate Court until recourse has first been had to that Court. This rule has been repeatedly laid down with reference to applications for revision and it was laid down with special reference to applications for transfer by the lute Sir George Knox at the conclusion of his judgment in Muneshar v. Raghubar (1913) 11 A.L.J. 741. In this case the transfer applied for could be granted by the District Magistrate under Section 528(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly no application has so far been made to the Magistrate. If this fact had been brought to the notice of the Court at the time when the application was...
Jhau Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All310
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore recommending that a certain order of 6th September, 1924, passed by a Magistrate of the first class, making an; order, under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, absolute, may be set aside.2. It appears that one Bachchu Lal complained that the opposite party, Jhau Lal, had constructed a platform on a public thoroughfare and had thereby obstructed it. The learned Magistrate issued a notice and on Jhau Lal appearing to show cause, took evidence and took into consideration the report made by a certain Deputy Magistrate and ordered that such portion of the platform as might be obstructing the highway should be removed. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that this order cannot stand, first because it is too vague and, secondly, because the learned Magistrate placed reliance mainly on the report of the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. Smart, who was not examined. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties an...
Ram Ghulam Alias Faqir Chand Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All325
Mears, C.J.1. This is an appeal in which there is a contest between a purchaser of certain property and a mortgagee. In the year 1897 Jwala Sahai and Behari Lal executed a usufructuary mortgage of two properties in favour of Ram Ghulam for a sum of Rs. 333. The mortgagee entered into possession. The profits of the property were considered to be about equal to the interest on the Rs. 333 and there was a provision that this usufructuary mortgage Could be redeemed in any month of Jeth after the expiration of six years. In the year 1901 a further sum of Rs. 99 was borrowed by the mortgagors upon the security of the same property from the same mortgagee, and in that document they bound themselves, as plainly, as words could bind, that they should not be at liberty to redeem the property unless and until they paid up the Rs. 333 and Rs. 99. In 1919 one of the properties was sold to Ram Chander, the plaintiff, for a sum of Rs. 500. He registered his sale-deed which had contained a stipulation...
Lakshmi Chand Vs. Lila Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All745; 87Ind.Cas.182
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be decreed. The plaintiff is the respondent in this Court. He sold to the defendant-appellant certain zamindari property and became thereby an ex-proprietary tenant of certain sir lands. On the very day on which the sale-deed was executed the plaintiff executed an agreement of rent by which he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 170 a year as the rent of the ex-proprietary holding. On foot of this agreement the purchaser made an application in the revenue Court under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act to have a rent assessed. The Revenue Court assessed it at the same sum of Rs. 170 as the plaintiff had agreed to pay. The order was an ex parte one. The plaintiff made an attempt to have the order set aside and the case re-heard, but he failed. Thereupon he brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen.2. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the kabuliyat had been obtained from him by exercise of undue influence and pressure. He also alleged that the rent...
In Re: Makhan Lal Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All298
Walsh, J.1. We are clearly of opinion that the Commissioner was right in this case in holding that no question of law arises. The question whether an assessee is a member of a joint family sharing in the funds, or whether he is separate, is a pure question of fact which must be tried according to law like every other question of fact. It is desirable to point out that Section 66 under the new Act does not give a right of appeal. Persons assessed to income-tax should clearly understand that this Court is not a Court of appeal to which resort may be had if they happen to be dissatisfied with the decision against them. There is no such thing as a memorandum of appeal. If the Commissioner is satisfied that there is a point of law on which he requires the opinion of this Court, he seeks the opinion by stating a case. If, as in this case, he holds that there is no point of law, the assessee has to satisfy two Judges of this Court that a distinct point of law was raised before the Commissione...
Ameraj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All306
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of one Ameraj under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been ordered to undergo 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300,2. Several points have been urged in revision, but none of them except one appears to carry any weight. The single point that does carry weight is this.3. The applicant, on the 9th of November, 1922, made a statement on oath that a certain person bearing the name of Radhe Mohan was his father's brother. This statement is supposed to be false, nay, it has been established clearly that this statement was false. Sanction to prosecute the applicant for having made this false statement was obtained on the 1st of June, 1923. The proceedings, however, were not started against the applicant till the 31st of October, 1923. In the meantime, Act XVIII of 1923 had come into force on the 1st of September, 1923. The change that was effected in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »