Allahabad Court May 1932 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.
Bishambhar Nath Vs. Achal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All651; 140Ind.Cas.123
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application in revision. The order sought to be revised is an order of the District Magistrate of Agra purporting to have been passed by him in exercise of the appellate powers conferred on him by Section 318, Municipalities Act 2 of 1916. The application before me purports to be an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by that section is limited to cases decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court' and it is argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that as the Court for the District Magistrate when dealing with appeals under Section 318, Municipalities Act, is not subordinate to the High Court this Court has no jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C. to revise the orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 318, Municipalities Act. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that in view of the fact that by Sec...
Mangal Misir and anr. Vs. Ramlagan Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All65
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This case illustrates in a remarkable degree the extent to which the salutary provisions as to the appointment of commissioners contained in Section 75 and Order 26, Rule 9, Civil P.C., in consequence of the disregard of the provisions of Clause (3), Rule 10, Order 26, are liable to be abused with ruinous result to the litigants. Once a Commissioner has been appointed and has submitted his, report, the Court has no right, unless' it comes to the conclusion that the Commissioner has so misconceived his fundamental duties as to render his report useless, to appoint another Commissioner. There is no warrant in law for the appointment of a succession of Commissioners unless the Court for reasons to be recorded by it, is of the opinion that the report of the Commissioner appointed by it, and objected to by one party or the other, is wholly valueless, and further elucidation of the matter in dispute between the parties is necessary by the appointment of a more competent Com...
Sharda Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All583
Benerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Sarda Prasad against an order of a Magistrate directing payment of Rs. 8 per month as maintenance to the opposite party, Mt. Piari. This order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Although the order of the Special Magistrate, First Glass, directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 8 per month to the applicant, it seems that the learned Sessions Judge in revision considered that that order was an order that the amount should be sent to the City Magistrate of Bareilly by money order. Why, I am unable to understand. The fact that the woman's father is the servant of the City Magistrate is no reason for considering that an order for payment of maintenance must mean that the amount should be sent through the City Magistrate. It seems to ma perfectly clear that the proceedings that were taken in the criminal Courts at Bareilly were mala fide proceedings, taken for the purpose of nullifying any order that a civil Court may pass in a pend...
Hira Singh and anr. Vs. Chandan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All663
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Munsif under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act. 3 of 1926, inquiring for a direction of this Court as to whether the Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. Learned Counsel for defendants drew attention to the fact that one of the three defendants had died and he desired that the case should be adjourned for proceedings of abatement or substitution of names to be taken by the Munsif. But we consider that we must first decide the question as to whether the Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaint asked for a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners of a pucca well in plot 326 of a certain village and that defendants had no connexion with that well. The plaintiffs set forth in their plaint that they were the tenants of No. 326. The written statement denied that the plaintiffs were tenants of that number and alleged that the well had been made by the defendants. The plaint admitted that the defendants were th...
Yar Mahomed Vs. Bansi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All674
Pullan, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh rejecting an application made by one Yar Muhammad for sanction to prosecute eight persons under Section 193, I. P.C. These eight persona among others gave evidence in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh in a case in which Yar Muhammad and others were accused of the serious offences of murder rioting and arson. The Sessions Judge believed the evidence of. five of these eight witnesses, disbelieved the evidence of one Mt. Gobindi and felt himself unable to accept the evidence of the other two. He found however that the case as stated by them was substantially true and he convicted eight persons under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced them to transportation for life. He also found them guilty of minor offences and all except three of them guilty of the offence of arson and awarded separate sentences under the relevant sections. When the appeal came before the High Court, the Judges were of opinion that...
Bhagwan Sahai and ors. Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All693
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Munsif under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, on the question of jurisdiction to entertain a certain suit. The plaintiff'3 case is as follows : An occupancy holding originally belonged to four brothers, one of whom, now represented by the defendants, separated taking a fourth share in the lands. After this separation there came into existence two holdings 'one independent of the other. The holding which was held by the three brothers became the property of the plaintiff's ancestor alone, because two of the brothers died without any issue. Later on, out of the larger holding & bighas were given to the defendants by way of concession with the result that out of the holding the plaintiffs' share is 21 bighas 13 biswas and the defendants' share is 4 bighas 10 biswas. The plaintiffs went to the Revenue Court asking for a partition. There the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs to the larger amount of the share claimed by the plaintiffs ...
Mt. Kaniz Fatma Vs. Yad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All520
King, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a nine annas share out of certain property and that defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to a one anna share and defendant 5 to 4 annas.2. The relationship between the parties ap pears from ttig following pedigree: Pir Baksh Pir Bakhsh | | ------------------------------- ------------------------------ | | | | | Mt. Maqsudannissa Abdul Nabi Khairatun Nabi=Mt. Wajibunnissa Niaz Hussain | defendant 5 | | Fazal Ahmad Mt. Kaniz Fatima, Plaintiff | | ------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Yad Husain, Wahid Husain Zahur Hussain Manzur Hussain defendant 1. defendant 2. defendant 3. defendant 4.3. The plaintiff, Mt. Kaniz Patima, claims that the property in suit belonged to her father Khairatun Nabi and that she is entitled to an eight annas share as his heir. Out of the two annas share which passed by inheritance to her mother Mt. Wajibunnissa, she is entitled to...
In Re: Narain-das Mohan Lal of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All231
Bennet, J.1. These are two income-tax matters arising on the application of the asscssccs, Mohan Lal Narain Das of Benares. The first is a reference by the Income-tax Commissioner, Miscellaneous Case No. 842 of 1931, and the second is an application, Miscellaneous Case No. 70 of 1932, by the asscssccs asking that the Commissioner should be required to make a further statement on certain points. In regard to this application we have heard learned Counsel, and we have come to the conclusion that there is no further statement of the case required from the Income-tax Commissioner. Argument was made on ground (c) of this application which was whether after the filing of a revised return the assessee can be deemed guilty under Section 52, Income-tax Act. We consider that this is not a question which can be referred to this Court under Section 66, Income-tax Act. Section 66(1) lays down:If in the course of any assessment under this Act or any proceeding in connexion therewith other than a pro...
NaraIn Das Mohan Lal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: [1933]1ITR182(All)
- These are two income-tax matters arising on the application of the assessees, Mohan Lal Narain Das of Benares. The first is a reference by the Income Tax Commissioner, Miscellaneous Case No. 842 of 1931, and the second is an application, Miscellaneous Case No. 70 of 1932, by the assessees asking that the Commissioner should be required to make a further statement on certain points. In regard to this application we have heard learned Counsel, and we have come to the conclusion that there is no further statement of the case required from the Income Tax Commissioner. Argument was made on ground (c) of this application which was whether after the filing of a revised return the assessees can be deemed quality under Section 52, Income Tax Act. We consider that this is not a question which can be referred to this Court under Section 66, Income Tax Act. Section 66(1) lays down :'If in the course of any assessment under this Act or any proceeding in connection therewith other than a proceedi...
Babu HarnaraIn Sahi Vs. Sadhu Govind Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All551
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P.C., for stay of execution proceedings. It is made on the ground that the judgment-debtor entered into a compromise with the decree holder to the effect that the latter should execute his decree aginst the villages of Singha and Mahesra, which were said to be free from encumbrance; and that if any encumbrance were discovered on these villages the decree-holder should proceed against the villages of Pakaryar and Sorha. The decree-holder has however proceeded against these two latter villages on the allegation that village Singha had an encumbrance on it. On the question of whether there is an encumbrance on this village the two lower Courts have decided that there is, but a second appeal is pending.2. The applicant states in para. 12 that he will suffer an irreparable injury and may have to pay substantial compensation if the villages of Sorha and Pakaryar are sold. This is explained by the allegation that he has e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »