Allahabad Court April 1929 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: Kajori Mal Kalyan Mal of General Ganj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All209; 122Ind.Cas.741
1. This is a statement of the case by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The facts are given in the statement and very briefly are these. There is a joint Hindu family of which Lala Kalyanmal seems to be the head. He was called upon by the Income-tax Officer to furnish a return of the income by a notice which was served on Lala Kalyanmal on 13th April 1928. The notice was under Section 22(2) of the Act and called upon the proposed assessee to make his return of income by 12th May 1928. It will be noticed here, for this is a very important matter, that the proposed assessee had only 29 days within which to comply with the order. Kalyanmal failed to comply with the order, and on 19th May 1928, the Income-tax Officer called on Lala Kalyanmal, by means of a notice issued under Section 22(4), to submit his account books on 28th May 1928. On that date, Lala Kalyanmal did appear with the account books. He was able to persuade the Income-tax Officer to ...
Sakina Bibi and anr. Vs. Sairi Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All500; 122Ind.Cas.867
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for partition. We have had considerable difficulty in extracting the facts of the case. Once, however, those facts have been ascertained, the disposal of the matter before us gives rise to no difficulty. The pedigree of the family concerned is set out at p. 10 of the printed book. One Shah Muhammad had three sons, Khuda Baksh, Taj Muhammad and Karim Bakhsh. All of these three sons have a number of descendants, but we are informed that the branch of the family of Karim Bakhsh made no claim to the property in dispute. With the reason for this we are not concerned. We have only to consider the rights of the descendants of Khuda Bakhsh and Taj Muhammad inter se. The present suit for partition was brought by Sakina Bibi, a granddaughter of Taj Muhammad, against original 18 defendants. Of these, numbers 1 to. 6 and 9 to 17 are of the branch of Khuda Bakhsh. Defendants 7 and 8 were sons of Taj Muhammad. Defendant 18 Abdul Qadir not to be c...
Pitambar Das Vs. Punna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All511
1. These two appeals Nos. 2332 and 2203 of 1927, are brought by the same appellant Pitambar Das against the orders of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh, dismissing his appeals. The facts are rather brief and are similar in the two cases. The facts in appeal No. 2332 are as follows: Chheddi, the father of minor defendant 1, executed three simple mortgage-deeds in favour of the plaintiff as follows: (1) 26th December 1911, (2) 25th August 1914 (3) 14th April 1919. All these deeds were on the same property. Subsequent to the third deed the plaintiff on 28th July 1924 assigned his rights as mortgagee under the second deed to one Daulat Ram. After this Daulat Ram brought a suit to enforce the second mortgage-deed, and he made the present plaintiff Pitambar Das a party to that suit. In para. 5 of the plaint it is true that he says that Pitambar Das is only made a pro forma defendant and no relief is asked for against him. Accordingly Pitambar did not disclose by a written statement th...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Tasadduq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All549
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The property said to have been transferred is worth Rs. 2,000 but there is no registered sale-deed in existence. What happened was that in the mutation Court the vendor made an admission that the property in question had been purchased at auction years ago in the name of his father, who was a benamidar for the defendant, and prayed that the names may be mutated accordingly. The revenue Court has acted upon the admission so made. The plaintiffs treating this as a sale instituted a suit for pre-emption. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim. The finding is that the allegation that the previous auction sale was a 'benami' transaction really for the benefit of the transferee, is untrue and that this story was devised as a cloak for concealing the present transaction. The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that on account of his admission the vendor is now estopped from saying that no valid transfer ...
SaiduddIn Vs. MohiuddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All556
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a house situated within a notified area to which the Act does not apply, the second was zamindari property, and the third was another immovable property. It is admitted that the plaintiff had no right to pre-empt the third property. He had no doubt a right under the Act to pre-empt the zamindari property and he claimed to have the right to pre-empt the house under the Mahomedan law. If his claim for the house failed the whole suit must fail because of partial pre-emption. The learned District Judge has held that he performed the second demand under the Mahomedan law validly but that he failed to perform the first demand as required by the Mahomedan law. He has accordingly dismissed the whole suit. The plaintiff stated that when he heard of the sale he immediately saidI am pre-emptor, I possess the right of pre-emption and shall pre-empt.2. Thereafter he went to the house and took money from his box and went to the vendee and mad...
Sheo Prasad and anr. Vs. Sanaullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All558
1. This was a suit for sale to recover the balance of about Rs. 924 due on a mortgage. The mortgage was dated the 12th June, 1915, and was for a sum of Rs. 600 at 2 per cent p.m. simple interest. A total amount of Rs. 1368 had been realised by the mortgagee up to 1924, the last payment being an item of Rs. 500 made by the defendant mortgagor on 28th May 1924. On that date some further amount was due on the mortgage, an amount which has not been so far ascertained. An agreement was arrived at between the mortgagee and the mortgagor which is set out at the bottom of p. 8 of the paper-book. No question has been argued before us that the terms embodied on the particular slip of paper did not constitute a binding agreement. It is translated in the paper-book as follows:Only Rs. 300 remains to be paid out of the amount settled. You agree to pay it within 5 months, i.e., on or before Miti Katik Sudi Puranmashi Sambat 1981 (11th November 1924), If it is not paid as agreed, then we shall realis...
Sahdeo Vs. Budhai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All571; 117Ind.Cas.337
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, made by the Additional Munsif of Allahabad as he was in doubt as to his having jurisdiction to entertain this suit. His reference is in accordance with a ruling of this Court, Ram Pratab Singh v. Chhotey Lal Singh : AIR1928All269 . The reference came up first before another Bench which felt doubtful as to the correctness of that ruling. The matter has accordingly been referred to a larger Bench.2. The plaintiff first instituted a suit for declaration of his right to a tenancy in the revenue Court but his plaint was returned for presentation to proper Court on the ground that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He has now filed the suit in the civil Court and an objection has this time been raised by the defendants that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. It is not necessary to set forth all the allegations in the plaint, but it would be sufficient to state that the plainti...
Mohammad Najaf and ors. Vs. Badri NaraIn Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All658; 118Ind.Cas.719
ORDER1. These three appeals arise out of three suits brought for pre-empting the same sale. The first suit was instituted by the vendor's own brother, Badri Narain. He did not specially allege in the plaint that he was separate from his brother, though he brought a suit to preempt the share transferred by his brother. In the second suit brought by Najaf it was alleged in the plaint that the family was joint but this allegation was generally denied by Badri Narain in his written statement. The question of the jointness of the vendor and Badri Narain was in dispute but the learned Subordinate Judge did not frame any issue on this point. Apparently he has considered this question to be immaterial and he has held that the suit by Badri Narain is maintainable and he has the preferential right. He has tried to distinguish the case of Partap Narain v. Shyam Lal [1920] 42 All. 261, on the ground that there the sale-deed had been executed by the father for legal necessity and not by his brother...
Babu Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Subhan Mochi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All519
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit by two Mahomedan plaintiffs asking for two reliefs, the material portions of which are as follows:(a) It may be declared by the Court that the plaintiffs are authorized to take out the 'duldul' procession on the fourth of Muharram of every year without any obstruction or interference.(b) A perpetual injunction may be issued to the Hindus... and the Secretary of State for India restraining them from offering any obstruction in future to the 'duldul' procession... As the stoppage of the 'duldul' procession is due to the interference and orders of the Government servants and officers, it is necessary to implead the Secretary of State for India....2. The facts are broadly stated in the judgment of both the two lower Courts and no objection has been taken on either side before us that the facts have not been correctly stated. The case comes from the district of Ghazipur, and trouble between the Hindus and Mahomedans is said to have start...
Man Singh Vs. Guman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All619
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The transfer took place under a document which was described as a sale deed but it contained a condition that the property will be re-transferred on payment of the consideration within three years. The plaintiff's case was that the transaction was really one of sale and they were entitled to pre-empt the property transferred. Both the vendors and the vendees pleaded that the transaction was one of a mortgage by conditional sale and no right to pre-empt accrued on it.2. The Courts below have treated this case as if it turned entirely on the construction of the document in question. Both Courts have come to the conclusion that in view of certain rulings the transaction was an out and out sale coupled with an agreement to re-transfer the property on payment of the mortgage within three years. The learned District Judge has conceded that the recent rulings of this Court favoured the view advocated on behalf of the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »