Allahabad Court December 1930 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.
(Chaudhary) Rajdhar Vs. Mohan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All325
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against an appellate order dismissing his suit. The plaintiff sued to enforce a mortgage bond of 12th December 1919 executed by the defendants. Subsequent to this transaction on 9th December 1922 there was a simple bond executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 650 balance then owing after some payment had been made by the defendants. The question before us is whether the execution of this bond of 9th December 1922 was a novation of contract between the parties within the meaning of Section 62, Contract Act. A suit was brought No. 1454 of 1924 by the plaintiff on the basis of this bond of 9th December 1922, and it was held in that suit that the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiff had made certain interpolations in regard to interest and in regard to instalments after the bond had been executed by the defendants. On account of this forgery by the plaintiff the Courts held that the plaintiff was unable t...
Khan Chand and anr. Vs. Ghasita and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All350
Dalal, J. 1. This is a second appeal within the cognizance of a single Judge of this Court. Our brother Sen has certified it to be fit for hearing by a Bench of two Judges. That is how the appeal has come for hearing before us. This appeal is instituted by certain judgment-debtors. They are judgment-debtors under a simple money decree which was obtained by the creditors on foot of a mortgage of 1908. One Chet Ram had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the ancestors of the decree-holders. The objectors (judgment-debtors) are some of the successor-in-interest of Chet Ram, we were told that two-thirds of the mortgage had been redeemed and the mortgagees sued on the basis of the mortgage for recovery of one-third of the amount of the mortgage and obtained a simple money decree. The decree was prepared in the following terms:Suit is decreed with costs against the assets of Chet Ram in the hands of the defendants who will be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged property...
Krishna Saroop Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All452
Sen, J.1. This and the connected two applications for revision arise out of three suits instituted by Misir Raj Bahadur Singh minor with Mt. Maharaj Kunwar as his next friend in the Court of the parganna officer of Tehsil Karhal for recovery of profits from the defendant who is a lambardar. The case was adjourned from time to time. On 25th September 1928 the parties were not ready with their evidence. On 2nd November 1928, the plaintiff had no evidence ready in Court. An order was passed on that date distinctly intimating to the plaintiff that he was to be ready with his evidence on 9th November 1928 and if he failed to do so, no further indulgence would be allowed. On 9th November 1928, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff and this suit and the connected two suits Nos. 16 and 22 of 1928 were dismissed for default of appearance under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C.2. On 10th December 1928, an application was presented in each of the three suits for setting aside the order, da...
Chaudhri Rajdhar Vs. Mohan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.593
1. This is a second appeal by the piaintiff against an appellate order dismissing his suit. The plaintiff sued to enforce a mortgage bond of 12th December, 1919, executed by the defendants. Subsequent to this transaction on 9th December, 1922 there was a simple bond executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 650 balance then owing after some pay-ment had been made by the defendants. The question before us is whether the execu-tion of this bond of 9th December, 1922, was a novation of contract between the parties within the meaning of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. A suit was brought No. 1454 of 1924 by the plaintiff on the basis of this bond of 9th December, l922, and it was held in that suit that the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiff had made certain interpolations in regard to interest and in regard to instalments after the bond had been, executed by the defendants. On account of this forgery by the plaintiff the Courts held that the plaintiff ...
Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All223
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Mohan Lal and Mt. Parbati against a decree for redemption passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Banda in a suit brought by Ram Charan major and Ram Dhani minor, plaintiffs-respondents. Various grounds of appeal have been taken both of law and fact. The mortgage in question was dated 7th September 1876 and was executed by one Khubehand in favour of Madho Prasad for Rs. 2,200. The first point which has been argued is that there was also a mortgage by conditional sale of 25th February 1875 for Rs. 215 of the property in suit to the defendants, and that there was a suit for foreclosure on the basis of this mortgage deed of 25th February 1875 which was decreed on 1.1th April 1888, and therefore defendants pleaded that no further suit could be brought for redemption by persons claiming as heirs of Khubchand. Now it is clear from what evidence has been produced by the defendants that there was only a preliminary decree for foreclosure passed u...
Emperor Vs. Bansidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All262
Kendall, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Etawa recommending that a conviction by a Bench of Magistrates which has been upheld by the District Magistrate should be quashed and the sentences set aside. The facts are not of importance. The reference is made on the ground that the Bench Magistrates refused the. applications made by the accused under Section 162, Criminal P. C, to be supplied with copies of the statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution to the police. . . . .2. The application made to the Bench for copies of these statements was rejected after the Magistrates had perused the police diaries on the ground that what was recorded in the diaries consisted not of the statements of the witnesses at. length but merely of a memorandum of such statements taken down by the investigation officer.3. Under proviso. 1, Section 162 (1), Criminal P. C:When any witness is exiled for the prosecution in such an enquiry or trial whose statemen...
In Re: Ganga Sagar of Khurja
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All417
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act, made at the instance of one Seth Gangasagar. The facts leading to this reference, briefly, are these: Seth Gangadas was directed to produce his books in respect of his income for the ' previous year ' which commenced in Diwali 1984 and went up to the Diwali of 1985. He produced his account books, but failed to produce the account book of the year 1981 to 1982. He also failed to produce the account books of a certain firm known as Jogiram Jadki Prasad. The Income-tax Officer, Mr. Dhown, looked into the accounts submitted, calculated the income, allowed certain deductions, disallowed others and ultimately found that the total income which was taxable came to Rs. 7,00,000 odd. He calculated the income-tax and the super-tax and declared that the net amount came to Rs. 96,933-12-0 Having said so, the learned officer made the following remark:The assessment is wholly based on accounts but i...
In Re: Gur Charan Prasad, Khatri of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All421
Bennet, J. 1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner of two points;(1) Has the Income-tax Officer jurisdiction to impose a penalty in the matter of income-tax in proceedings for assessment taken under Section 34, Income-tax Act?(2) Has the Income-tax, Officer jurisdiction to impose a penalty in the matter of super-tax under the circumstances of this case.2. The facts as found by the Income-tax Commissioner are that a certain assessee had made a return of income-tax and had been assessed on 27th February 1928; and subsequently on 15th March 1929, a notice was issued under Section 34 read with Section 22 (2), Income-tax Act, requiring the assessee to furnish a return, and on 20th April 1929 the applicant furnished the return showing the same figure Rs. 72,380 as his total income. This was the same figure which he had previously returned as is admitted before us. Subsequently the applicant's books were produced and his total income was found to have been Rs. 2,92,952 for the y...
In Re: Gurcharan Prasad Khatri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.875
1. This is a reference by the Income Tax Commissioner of two points:(1) Has the Income Tax Officer jurisdiction to impose a penalty in the matter of Income-tax in proceedings for assessment taken under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act?(2) Has the Income Tax Officer jurisdiction impose a penalty in the matter of supertax under the circumstances of this case?2. The facts found by the Income Tax Commissioner are that a certain assessee had made a return of Income-tax and had been assessed on February 27, 1928. and subsequently on March 15, 1929, a notice was issued under Section 34 read with Section 22 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act requiring the assessee to furnish a return and on April 20, 1929, the applicant furnished the return showing the same figure Rs. 72,380, as his total income. This was the same figure which he had previously returned as is admitted before us. Subsequently the applicant's books were produced and his total income was found to have been Rs, 2,92,952 for the year...
Brij Mohan Das Vs. Bhikhuji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All207; 129Ind.Cas.717
Dalal, J.1. It was suggested by Dr. Katju who appeared on behalf of the appellant that the appeal may be referred to a Bench of two Judges. I am not in agreement with such a request. If a matter is of some difficulty for decision it does not necessarily follow that it should be referred to a Bench of two Judges. The decision of a single Judge, if so permitted, is open to appeal to such a Bench and no reason is apparent why the ordinary rule of procedure should not be followed in every case.2. The dispute in this case relates to a right of what is known as 'lagan.' It is a right peculiar to religious places situated on the banks of a river. A river in India which in its course is generally as unstable as a maiden often leaves its course or overlaps the neighbouring land. Prie3ts provide for religious necessities of Hindus, sitting on the bank of the river over a certain plot of land known as 'ghat.' The proprietorship rests with certain men of substance who are nonresident and they allo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »