Allahabad Court May 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.
imamuddIn Vs. Mohd. Raisul Islam Hashmi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All736
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. The main plea raised by the defendants which has prevailed with the Courts below is that according to the plaintiff's own evidence the second demand was not performed according to law.2. It appears that the plaintiff heard of the sale from one Banwari Lal and made his first demand there and then. He then took Banwarilal with him to the vendee who was on the premises and made the second demand to the vendee in the presence of Banwari Lal. and a servant of the vendee who was present there at the time. The plaintiff had not brought this witness with him as he had brought Banwarilal. The plaintiff's statement shows that although in making the second demand he referred to the first demand having been made by him promptly,he did not charse them (the witnesses) to bear witness to the demand.3. The plaintiff hag coma up in appeal to this Court and on his behalf it is contended that the om...
Hasan Ali Vs. Waliullah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All730
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and asises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,569 from the defendant under the following circumstances:2. Syed Nabiullah owned certain zamindari property in mauza Rampur in the province of Agra. Under an instrument, dated 20th March 1921, he leased the said property to one Murtaza Husain for a period of five years certain. It was agreed that the lessee would pay the Government revenue, all expenses relating to the management of the property and Rs, 900 a year to the lessor in two instalments. Murtaza Husain, the lessee, was not possessed of any property. The lessor insisted upon the lessee finding a surety for the due fulfillment of his engagements. On 21st May 1921, Syed Hasan Ali, the defendant, executed a contract of guarantee in favour of Syed Nabiullah under which he ensured the due fulfillment of the engagements on the part of the lessee under the instrument, dated 20th March 1921.3. The lease was to run from 1329 F to 1331 F. The les...
Emperor Vs. Radha Raman Mittra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All817; 129Ind.Cas.260
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, arising out of the following facts: The trial of P. Spratt and others under Section 121-A, I.P.C., commonly known as the Meerut Conspiracy Case, is proceeding in the Additional Judge's Court. One of the accused in that case, namely R.R. Mittra, applied to the Judge for permission to visit his widowed sister who was lying seriously ill at Calcutta. The Judge forwarded the application to the District Magistrate with the remark that if and when the Local Government or the Government of India should decide to send the applicant, or allow him to go, to his house, then it would be for the Court to consider the question of dispensing with his attendance under Section 540-A, Criminal P.C.2. On the afternoon of 26th April 1930 the Judge received, through the usual official channels, an order from the Government of India stating:The Government of India agree that Radha Raman Mittra, an undertrial in the Meeru...
Nathu Ram Vs. Ganga Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All815
Sen, J.1. Nathu Ram sued Sunder Lal, Ganga Bakhsh and Ramadheen in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore for recovery of Rs. 267. Notice of the claim could not be served upon Ramadheen and he was exempted. Sunder Lal and Ganga Bakhsh in spite of service of summons did not contest the claim and an ex parte decree was passed against them on 6th January 1928.2. On 5th December 1929, Ganga Bakhsh applied to the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. Notice of this application was given to the plaintiff and 21st December 1929 was fixed for its disposal. On that date Ganga Bakhsh applied to the Court that as there were technical defects in his application, the same should not be treated as one under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., but should be considered as one for review of judgment under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C.3. The Court accepted this petition. It may be noticed here that the period of limitation for the review of a judgment by a provincial Cou...
Mahomed Raza Ahmad and anr. Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All858
Niamatullah, J.1. This, appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for partition of a house and for a declaration that a sale deed, dated 24th November 1911, is void and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs. They claim to be entitled to half of the house the other half being the property of one Sheikh Fazal Ahmad, who is now represented by defendants other than defendants 1 to 3. The half share which is claimed by the plaintiffs, Mohammad Raza Ahmad and Mt. Taslimunnissa, originally belonged to their grandmother, Mt. Tazimunnissa, on whose death it was inherited by them in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third, respectively, their father having predeceased Mt. Tazimunnisa. Mt. Irshad Khatun, defendant 3, the mother of the plaintiffs, was appointed guardian of their person and property by the District Judge.2. By a deed, dated 24th November 1929, Mt. Irshad Khatun purported to sell half of the house to Mt. Kadirunnissa, defendant 2, wife of Hafizzahur Ahmad,...
In Re: Radhey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All23
Mukerji, J. 1. This matter has arisen out of an application made to this Court by three assessees asking this Court to call upon the Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces, to state a case, he having refused to state one when applied to for the purpose by the applicants. The Commissioner of Income-tax has now stated a case and we have to see what are the questions of law that arise for determination by this Court.2. The learned Government Advocate has placed before us an unreported judgment of a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court delivered on 20th January 1930 [Since reported in S.A. Subbiah Iyer v. Commr. of Income-tax : AIR1930Mad449 Ed.] as an authority for the proposition that the High Court would not consider any point of law that was not raised either be ' fore the appellate officer or the Commissioner himself by the assessees. We have no reason to differ from what was laid down in that case and we think it but right that only such points 6i law should be considered by the...
Rama Shankar and anr. Vs. Janki Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All28
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case which have given rise to this appeal are set forth in the judgment of the lower appellate Court and need not be recapitulated. A decree for profits was passed against the appellant by the revenue Court on 30th October 1926. An appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge on 17th January 1927. Ex facie the appeal was time barred. The lower appellate Court -dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is contended before us that the lower appellate Court has erred in computing the period of limitation having regard to the provisions of Section 12, Sub-section (2), Lim. Act. It is not necessary to examine this contention in detail because we are clearly of opinion that even upon computing the period of limitation most favourably to the appellant, the appeal is clearly time barred by at least three days. It was contended that the appellant was misled by the advice of some legal practitioner whose name we do not know, The Court below has eviden...
Nathan Lal and ors. Vs. Durga Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All62
Sen, J.1. Mt. Janki Kuer and Nand Kishore were the proprietors of 'khata khawat' No. 1 of mahal Baqimanda, Mauza Muhiuddinpur Buklana, in equal moieties. On 8th August 1923, they executed a lease in favour of L. Durga Das for a term of five years, i. e., from 1331 P. to 1335 F. The rent agreed to be paid by the lessee , to the lessors was Rs. 4,000. It was stipulated that out of the said sum of Rs. 4,000 the lessee was to deposit in the Government Treasury Rs. 1,969 for the Government revenue every year, and the balance of Rs. 2,031 was payable to Nand Kishore and Mt. Janki Kuar in equal shares. On or about the time when the lease was executed Nand Kishore borrowed Rs. 2,500 from the lessee, but left that amount with him for payment to one Mangal Sen, in whose favour he had executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,100.2. Under the terms of the lease Rs. 1,015-8-0 was payable to Mt. Janki Kuar. As regards his share of the rent, Nand Kishore entered into the following arrangement with the le...
In Re: Kashi Nath Bagla
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1932All1; 136Ind.Cas.575
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax on the application of an assessee who is a minor of unsound mind under the guardianship of his mother. On 2nd February 1927 the income-tax officer made an assessment under Section 23(4), Income-tax Act, acting under that section because no return of income had been filed. The assessment was on an income estimated at Rs. 1,17,600 and the minor was assessed to income-tax and super-tax, the assessment being based on the income estimated for 1925-26. On 11th March 1928 the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that some income had escaped assessment and accordingly he issued a notice to the minor under Sections 22(2) and 34 for the same year's income. Accounts were filed and the income-tax officer assessed the income as Rs. 1,31,875. Against that assessment of extra income an appeal was made to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner held that the actual income was less than the Rs. 1,17,600 which had ...
Sada Sheo and ors. Vs. Mt. Ram Peary and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All29
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that that suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233, (k), Land Revenue Act. The facts are that the plaintiffs sued for possession of seven-eighths of certain zamindari property in the possession of Mt. Gurdei, defendant 2 claiming that plaintiffs and defendant 3, Ram Naik, are entitled to the whole of this property. The property in suit belonged to one Harnath, who was of the family of the plaintiffs, and it has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that on the death of Harnath his son Maharaj Kishor was a leper to such an extent that he was disqualified from inheriting the property of his father. Maharaj Kishor nevertheless was entered for the property after the death of his father and died very shortly afterwards, and left a widow, Mt. Ram Peary, defendant 1. The death of Harnath took place wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »