Allahabad Court May 1928 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.
In Re: Indian Turpentine and RosIn Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All118; 114Ind.Cas.865
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-Tax in the following terms in regard to the business of the Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company, Limited:Is the share of the profits of the company in 1925-26, which was paid to the Government of the United Provinces as additional royalty in 1926-27, expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning the profits of the company assessable in 1926-27 within the meaning of Section 10(2)(9) Incom-tax Act?2. The origin of this company is as follows: Originally the Government of the United Provinces owned a factory for the production of resin in Bareilly and that factory received crude resin from the Forest Department. In the year 1923 the Local Government desired to have the factory transferred to a company and accordingly it entered into a deed of sale and an annexed schedule of agreement with a certain syndicate of three gentlemen who eventually floated the company called the Indian Turpentine and Resin Company, Limited. T...
Radha Kishen Vs. Bhorey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All626; 110Ind.Cas.373
Dalal, J.1. To the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money due on a contract the reply was that the defendant Radha Kishen was a minor on the date of the contract. According to a guardianship certificate given by a District Court to his mother the date of birth of Radha Kishen is 14th August 1907. The present contract was effected on 16th January 1926, i. e, before Radha Kishen reached the age of 21. He was, therefore, a minor on the date of the contract. The learned Judge of the lower Court, however, held him liable under the contract on this ground :When a person between 18 and 21 years of age enters into a contract with the knowledge that his minority has been extended by reason of an order under Section 7, Guardians and Wards Act with a person who is not aware of that fact there is misrepresentation and legal fraud on his part and he is estopped from taking advantage of his minority to show that the contract by him is inoperative.2. Obviously, though he makes no such reference the J...
Sattar and ors. Vs. Nazir Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All147; 114Ind.Cas.867
Dalal, J.1. A final judgment for the preparation of a final decree was passed in this suit on 26th November 1924. According to the judgment, and also according to the decree, certain defendants, who are applicants here, were exempted, and the decree was passed only against defendants 1 to 10, 13, 27, 28, 29 and 30. The plaintiff was decreed possession against these defendants only, and his suit against the other defendants was dismissed. It is not necessary to dwell on the reasons for the dismissal. To find out over what property the plaintiff should be given possession, the Court ordered the amin on 8th November 1924, to prepare a plan of the portion of the house over which the plaintiff was to receive possession. The amin prepared a plan containing the property in possession of the defendants-applicants who were specially exempted from the operation of the decree. Parties and pleaders were negligent as usual, and no one discovered the mistake. Negligence went so far that when the pla...
Hatim Vs. Sheikh Sadiq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.605
Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal. Plaintiffs--seven in number--instituted a suit against the appellant Hatim praying for three reliefs, demolition of certain constructions on certain land, possession over that land, and a perpetual injunction restraining Hatim from making any construction, or any improper use of plot No. 1026/8 which the plaintiffs, say was owned by them. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, bud on appeal the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed and the defendants were allowed two months within which to remove the construction. An, appeal was filed by Hatim against the judgment and decree of the District Judge. Proceedings were taken by the appellant to stay the execution of the decree. In the course of the hearing of the application for stay of execution an affidavit was filed by Madho Lal in this Court on the 25th May, 1923, in para. 11 of which it was stated that Sirajul Haq...
Partap Singh and ors. Vs. Meharban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.392
This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for redemption of an old mortgage. The plaintiffs came into Court on the allegation that the ancestors of the fathers of plaintiff No. 1 and the other plaintiffs were co-sharers of a 10-anna share of village Safa, and as they could not pay the Government revenue due, Nand Lal, the common ancestor of the defendants, had to pay Rs. 90 and Nand Lal took possession of their share. The Courts below have found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the mortgage setup by them. Mr. Asthana on behalf of the appellants contends that the Courts below lost sight of para. 10 of the written statement filed by the defendant Meharban Singh on the 15th October, 1924. Paragraph 10 of the written statement is as follows:About 66 years ago there was no grain produce in Mauza Safa and there was a famine. Nand Lal and his father who was the lambardar had to pay about Rs. 2,000 on aceount of revenue after borrowing the money. The other co-sharers refused to pay the da...
Muhammad Zafaryab Khan Vs. Abdul Razzac Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All532
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain occupancy holdings and mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to have inherited this property as the collaterals of Mt. Zainab, the deceased wife of the contesting defendant Muhammad Zafaryab Khan. The defence was that the property was in the possession of the defendant in his own right and' that he had been in adverse possession of it as against his own wife. There was a further plea that the defendant being a lambardar and a cosharer in the village, and the suit having been brought more than six months after the death of Mt. Zainab, was barred 'under Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act. The claim was decreed, against the defendant The defendant preferred an appeal and the plaintiffs filed certain cross-objections after the time allowed by law.2. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal has abated. What happened was that during the pendency of the appeal Muham...
Bidha and ors. Vs. Bhola and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All681
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs, lessees under a prior transfer, sued for the ejectment of the defendants who are lessees under a subsequent transfer. The zamindar was also made defendant. The zamindar executed a lease on 11th October 1922, in favour of the plaintiffs to take effect on 23rd July 1923. The zamindar did not give possession, but subsequently on 17th November 1923, made a lease in favour of the defendants. The defendants were agricultural tenants in possession of the plots of land and had been ejected through a revenue Court. After the ejectment and after the zamindar took possession through Court this lease of 17th November 1923 was executed. The trial Court distinguished certain cases of defendants. He exempted out of the suit certain plots over which a defendant had acquired occupancy rights, and also certain plots which were in the cultivating possession of persons other than the defendants. As to the rest he granted a decree for possession.2. The learned Subordinate Judge ...
Aziz Ismail and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.674
When I first read the judgments of two Subordinate Courts, I was reminded of what Sir Toby Belch said to Malvolio 'Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, that there shall be no more cakes and ale.' I am afraid, however, that that view of the case was not justified by what has been held by a Bench of this Court in Ahmad Khan v. Emperor 12 Ind. Cas. 988; 34 A. 86; 8 A.L.J. 1262; 12 Cr. L.J. 612. It has been held there by two Judges that this ring game is not a game of mere skill. In addition to that, the single Judge, Chamier, J., who made the reference gave his opinion in the same direction.A request was made that I may refer the case to a larger Bench. I am opposed to the interpretation of law being revised periodically. The ruling is not a very old one. It is of 1911. The applicants were rightly convicted, but I do not think that such heavy fines were necessary. I Am of opinion that the Police did nothing wonderful in stopping the game and deserved no reward. The fine of the firs...
Muhammad Salim Vs. Ramkumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All710; 110Ind.Cas.657
1. The plaintiff-appellant is a weaver residing in Mauza Pura Shaikh Maruf, said to be appertaining to Kurthi Jafarpur, and he sued the 17 defendants, who are Hindu residents of Kurthi Jafarpur and other villages in the District of Azamgarh, for a declaration that hein particular and other Musalman residents of the village in general have a right to sacrifice cow specially on the occasions of festivals and Id-uz-zoha, regardless of any rite or custom in Mauza Pura Shaikh Maruf, appertaining to Kurthi Jafarpur, Pergana Ghosi and that the defendants have no right to make interference thereto,2. He also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from offering any sort of obstruction when Musalman residents of the village should offer sacrifice of cows or slaughter them. The cause of action is stated in this para. 4 of the plaint to be that on the occasion of Id-uz-zoha in 1924 the defendants came to the plaintiff's village in large numbers, surrounded it, and told the pl...
Joti Sarup and ors. Vs. Kamle Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1928
Reported in: AIR1933All149
1. The facts which led up to the institution of the suit from which this appeal arises are somewhat unusual. Two brothers, Tirbeni Sahai and Salik Ram, who were not however members of the joint family, executed a deed of simple mortgage for Rupees 6,000 in favour of one Kamle Singh. The mortgagee instituted Suit No. 203 of 1923 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun for the sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage debt amounted at that time to Rs. 6,000 principal and Rs. 4,625 interest. Kamle Singh impleaded, in addition to the two mortgagors, three other persons Suraj Prakash said to be insane, and Joti Sarup, adults, and Radha Raman minor, sons of Tirbeni Sahai, naming Mt. Katori, wife of Tirbeni Sahai, as the guardian of the 'insane' and minor defendants. Joti Sarup entered a written statement, resisting the suit on various grounds, in, which Mt. Katori joined as the guardian of Radha Raman, the minor, but none of the other defendants set up any defence. On 26th March 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »