Allahabad Court February 1931 Judgments
Naunita Kunwar and ors. Vs. Mullo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All653; 136Ind.Cas.372
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the original plaintiff Mt. Mullo who died pending appeal and is now represented by her sons for recovery of possession of certain property left by her father Ganesh who had died soilless, and subsequently transferred by his widow during the time she was in possession of his estate, to Mahabir Prasad who in turn transferred it to the appellant.2. The property to which this appeal, as argued before us, relates consisted of a few plots in all measuring 3.70 acres. It had been leased for ten years by Ganesh to a certain thekadar at an annual rent of Rs. 6. The lease was to expire in 1913. On 27th March 1911 his widow sold it to Mahabir Prasad for Rs. 200. It has been found by the lower appellate Court that money was urgently required for the plaintiff's marriage which could not be celebrated otherwise than by selling this property. On 4th December 1911 Mahabir Prasad, who it should be mentioned, resided in the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Har Krishna Das of Gola Gali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All401
Mukerji, J. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax has stated a case at the instance of one Rai Sahib Har Krishna Das under the following circumstances:The firm Vaishnava Das Jiwan Das of which Rai Sahib Har Krishna Das is the head has been assessed to an enhanced assessment and was made to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,000 by the Income-tax Officer. It appears that a return was made which was found to be inadequate. The return shows an income of Us. 12,000 odd while it was later found that the income was Rs. 90,000 odd. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer made an assessment of Rs. 8,000 odd as income-tax and Rs. 900 odd as super-tax. In addition to this enhanced taxation a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed. The firm appealed against the assessment to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and that learned officer dismissed the appeal so far as the assessment was concerned, but increased the penalty to a sum of Rs. 5,000. The penalty under the law, namely Section 28, Income-tax Act, could ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ali HusaIn and anr. Vs. Harhanga Lohar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All406
Pullan, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur who had before him an appeal from a decision of the Munsif of Rasra in a suit between two persons who claimed to be sub tenants of an agricultural holding. One of the points raised in appeal in the lower Court was that the suit was not cognizable by a civil Court. The learned Subordinate Judge without giving any reasons said that that plea had no force, and he decided the appeal on its merits. I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of jurisdiction. He approached the matter from a wrong standpoint. He held that such a suit could be filed in the civil Court. 'What he should have considered was whether this was or was not a suit which could have been decided by the revenue Court. Both in form and substance this is a suit which could have been, and therefore should have been brought under Section 99 (b), Agra Tenancy Act. The civil Court therefore had no jurisdiction.2. It has bee...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: an Application by Gulabchand Choteylal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All673
Bennet, J.1. This is an application by an assessee to the High Court asking that the Commissioner of Income-tax should be required to state a case under Section 66, Income-tax. The learned Government Advocate has taken a preliminary objection that the application is time barred. Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, states:If on any application being made under Sub-section (2) the Commissioner refuses to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises, the assessee may within six months from the date on which he is served with notice of the refusal, apply to the High Court.2. Now it is admitted that the Commissioner refused to state a case on 19th April 1930 and that the notice of refusal was communicated to the assessee on 3rd May 1930. The application to the High Court was made on 12th November 1930 and was not accompanied by any copies of the order of the Commissioner or of the Assistant Commissioner or of the Income-Tax Officer. Under Section 67 (a):In computing the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sumeran Das and ors. Vs. Kodai Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All117
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal brought by the representatives of the deceased plaintiff Ram Sumeran Das against a decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of certain zamindari property in five mahals of villages Mirpur, Madroha, Keotlaha and Raj pur Dubi. The plaint was accompanied by a pedigree and the claim of the plaintiff was that one Sant Bakhsh was the last owner of the property in dispute, that Sant Bakhsh died a separated Hindu before the settlement of 1860 and that Sant Bakhsh was succeeded by his two widows of whom one died shortly afterwards and the other widow Mt. Biranja died at the end of December 1914. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Mt. Biranja the plaintiff obtained possession of the property in dispute and that a mutation order was passed in his favour on 2nd August 1915. But that order was subsequently set aside on appeal and the opposite party, defendants 1 and 2, Kodai Das an...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Salig Ram Vs. Radhay Shiam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All560
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant against a decree of the learned Additional Subordinate .Judge of Moradabad in appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The plaint as originally brought was based on a promissory note of 7th November 1925 for Rs. 1,350 with interest at Re. 1.4-0 per cent. Subsequently the plaint was amended and the suit was based on an earlier promissory note of 10th November 1922 for Rs. 1,000 at the same rate of interest of Be. 1-4-0 per mensem. Both the promissory notes were stated to be executed by Salig Ram, the appellant, in favour of the father of the plaintiff.2. As regards the second promissory note it is admitted that this promissory note was not properly stamped. Accordingly, Section 35, Stamp Act, applies which states:No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purposes unless such instrument is duly stamped.3. It is contended that this promissory note of 7th November 1925 is inadmissible for evi...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Singh Vs. Gokul Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All140
Mears, C.J.1. This is an application for revision by a decree-holder, whose purchase in execution of his decree had been set aside by the Subordinate Judge on Bulandshahr on 4th May 1929. The last order was confirmed by the District Judge on appeal on 6th June 1930. The decree-holder has obtained a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage., This decree was put into execution and 20th October 1928 was originally fixed for the sale. On this date no sale took place, the date having been postponed to 3rd November 1928. On this date the only person present to bid was the decree-holder and the latter purchased the property. The application for setting aside the sale was made by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The Court of first instance held that the sale had taken place in defiance of the provision of Order 21, Rule 69 and therefore set aside the sale.2. The lower appellate Court framed an order but for a different reason. It held that there was some irregularity...
Tag this Judgment!Bankey Lal and anr. Vs. Chotey Miyan Abdul Shakur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All453
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit, for money being the price of certain goods supplied, instituted by the respondents against the appellants. The appellants were two in number, Bankey Lal and Munna Lal. On 20th December 1927, the plaintiffs and one of the defendants Bankey Lal agreed to refer the matter in difference between the parties to the arbitration of one Achal Singh. Achal Singh filed a written award on 16th January 1928. Before the award arrived 21s January 1928 had been fixed for hearing of the case. When the award arrived, the learned Munsif directed that the parties should be informed of the fact that their award had arrived and he further directed the parties to file objections if any. No objections were filed and the case was taken up on 21st January 1928 and a judgment was pronounced in term) of the award.2. The defendants went up in appeal to the learned District Judge and substantially two points were taken against the judgment One was that te...
Tag this Judgment!Bishambhar Vs. Radha Kishunji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All557
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his appeal and upholding the decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that a will dated 10th September 1926 executed by his cousin Mathura Prasad was illegal, null and void and ineffectual as against him. In the Court of first instance it was recorded as follows on 31st August 1927:The pleaders for the parties state that the parties to this ease agree that Babu Jwala Prasad, pleader, may be appointed referee, that the case may be decided in accordance with the statement which he may make in Court without any oath being administered to him or send it in writing, that the parties shall accept and agree to it and that they do not wish to produce any other evidence.2. On 5th September 1927 Babu Jwala Prasad applied for one day's further time and on 6th September 1927 the plaintiff made an application to ...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Rani Dulaiya Judeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All63
Young, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Banda. The plaintiff-respondent sued to recover possession of a village alleging that a deed of gift which set out that she had given this village to her three brothers in the year 1909, had bean procured from her by fraud, in that one of her brothers, Partap Singh, who was also managing her affairs, had represented to her that the said deed was merely a lease of the land in the village to him, which was necessary in order that he might manage the estate properly. That was the main allegation in the plaint. When the plaint was drawn up it is clear that the plaintiff relied upon that and on that alone. It is true that in the reliefs claimed the plaintiff said that the dead was obtained by practising fraud, bringing undue pressure to bear on her and taking advantage of her being a pardanashin lady.2. But in the body of the plaint the chief point relied upon was this allegation of fraud. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »