Allahabad Court August 1933 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.
Fasahatullah Khan and anr. Vs. Maula Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All778
Kendall, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances: The plaintiffs applicants as zamindars sued the defendant-respondent for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per annum and the defence was that the proper rent was Rs. 50 per annum. The trial Court finding that there had been an oral agreement between the parties to raise the rent from Rs. 50 to Rs. 110, decreed the plaintiff's suit, but the lower appellate Court (the District Judge) found that the rent could not be raised by such an oral agreement under Section 69, Tenancy Act. He further found however that the tenant had made encroachments and that the agreement really referred to a separate tenancy or at any rate it was not confined to the original 19 bighas in regard to which the tenant had originally entered on an agreement with the zamindars. He therefore allowed the appeal. The defendant therefore made an application for review of the order on the ground that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face...
Raja Yuvraj Datt Singh Vs. Kuar Tej Datt Singh Alias Chhotey Lalji and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.513
1. These are two applications under Section 23, Civil Procedure Code, made by Raja Yuvraj Datt Singh and Thakur Bhairon Singh respectively, who are defendants in a suit pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Aligarh. The suit was brought by the opposite party Madho Singh. The subject-matter of the suit is Oel Estate in Oudh which belonged to Raja Krishna Dat Singh, who died on December 15, 1932, leaving him surviving his widow Thakurain An and Kunwar, who is also a defendant to the suit, a son Thakur Tej Dat Singh and Yuvraj Singh, one of the applicants before us, who claims to be a son of Ram Dat Singh, a predeceased son of Raja Krishna Dat Singh and to be entitled to succeed under a will alleged to have been executed by the late Raja. It is not disputed that Tej Dat Singh is the legitimate son of Raja Krishna Dat Singh but there is controversy between the parties as to whether he is suffering from congenital idiocy.2. The plaintiff Madho Singh claims to be an agnate several d...
Fasahat Ullah Khan and anr. Vs. Maula Bux
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.231
Kendall, J.1. This appeal arises out of the following circumstances. The plaintiff applicants as zamindars sued the defendant-respondent for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 110 per annum and the defence was that the proper rent was Rs. 50 per annum. The trial Court finding that there had been an oral agreement between the parties to raise the rent from Rs. 50 to Rs. 110, decreed the plaintiffs' suit but the lower Appellate Court (the District Judge) found that the rent could not be raised by such an oral agreement under Section 69 of the Tenancy Act. He further found, however, that the tenant had made encroachments and that the agreement really referred to a separate tenancy or at any rate it was not confined to the original 19 bighas in regard to which the tenant had originally entered on an agreement with the zamindars. He, therefore, allowed the appeal. The defendant, therefore, made an application for review of the order on the ground that there was a mistake or error appellant ...
In Re: Seth Ganga Sagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All370
Bennet, J.1. This is an application by an assessee in income-tax for this Court to require the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, 11 of 1922. In stating the case the Income-tax Commissioner states the facts and on these facts this Court comes to a finding on a point of law. It is not open to this Court to find facts for itself. At the moat under Sub-section (4), Section 66, if this Court is not satisfied with the statement in a case the Court may ask for an additional statement or alterations. In the present casa the assessee in bin application to this Court states that he carries on banking and money lending business, and for the purpose of that business the assessee sells and purchases shares and Government securities; that for the last 30 years shares in different companies have bean purchased from time to time by the assessee's father and lifter his death by the assessee, and at present the asseasee owns about Rs. 13 lacs of shares at pa...
Mathura Das Channu Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All929
1. This is an application under Section 66(3) Income-tax Act, for an order of this Court directing the Income, tax Commissioner to state a case. The circumstances leading to the application are briefly these. The assessee was called upon by a notice under Section 22(2), Income-tax Act, to submit a return, which he did, but the return did not bear such verification as is required by the Income-tax Act, nor did it bear the signature of the assessee. Subsequently the Income-tax Officer issued another notice under Section 22(4), Income-tax Act, directing the assessee to produce his accounts for Sambat 1986-87 on 8th June 1931. He did not however produce his account books as directed by the notice. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment 'to the best of his judgment' under Section 23(4), Income-tax Act. The assessment was made on 8th June 1931. Subsequently the assessee made an application for cancellation of the assessment on the allegation that he had misread the notice and was under th...
Shailabala Devi Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All678; 145Ind.Cas.977
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in criminal revision by Mt. Sri-mad Shailabala Devi, filed in the interest of the accused Bisheshwar Prasad Sinha, her son. The application came up for hearing before a Single Judge who referred it to a Bench of two Judges and the latter have referred the case to a Full Bench as several important questions of law are involved. The accused was arrested for an offence under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act, and was prosecuted. At the trial in the Magistrate's Court he said that he did not want to take any part in the proceedings of the case, he did not want it to be adjourned, did not want to cross-examine any witnesses and that he had nothing to say in his defence. He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.2. The accused had a right of appeal to the Sessions Court, but did not choose to avail himself of that right nor did he attempt to file any application in revision in thi...
B. Shiva Prasad Gupta Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All820; 145Ind.Cas.670
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order convicting the accused under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act (Act 8 of 1914). The accused got his motor-car registered and the police authorities assigned to him the number 'U.P. 561 B.S.' Instead of reproducing these exact letters and figures the accused had, on his number plate, the latters 'U.P. with the figure '561' and the letters! 'B.S.' written in Hindi script. When: prosecuted, his defence was that he had complied with the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act inasmuch as he had in substance reproduced the number assigned to his car. There is no question that the Local Government has, under the authority conferred upon it by the Motor Vehicles Act, framed rules called the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1928, which was in force.2. Rule 22 provides that the number assigned to a motor vehicle shall be shown in white figures and letters of uniform size on a black ground in the case of a private motor vehicle. Then Rule...
Asmatullah and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All896
Young, J.1. Asmatullah, Majid Ashghar, Karan Khan, Mumtaz, Kallu and Wahid were charged before the Sessions Judge of Bijnor under Sections 395, 325 and 149, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted no less than 22 persons but convicted 7 under Section 325 read with Section 149. He sentenced the 7 accused found guilty to five weeks rigorous imprisonment each. These 7 accused appeal to this Court and we have before us two applications for revision by the party of the complainants ; one is against the setting aside of the order of acquittal of the 22 persons and the other is for the enhancement of the sentence of the 7 persons found guilty. I may say that as regards these applications in revision counsel for the applicants has very properly refused to press them and they are dismissed.2. On 27th July 1932 there was a riot in the neighbourhood of village Mandaoli. The first information report was made by one Karim Baksh Teli at the nearest thana which was about 6 miles from the pla...
Jagdish Saran Vs. Jaidai Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All903; 145Ind.Cas.942
ORDER1. The question for determination in this revision is whether the valuation put on the relief asked for by the plaintiff, who is the applicant before us, is the correct valuation in the circumstances of the case.2. It appears that there was an application for partition of zamindari property and it was opposed by the defendant on the ground that she was the owner of it and her name was recorded in the khewat. Thereupon, the applicant before us instituted the suit out of which this revision has arisen to obtain a declaration that he was the owner of the property and not the defendant. The plaintiff valued his relief, which, as we have said, was of a declaratory nature, at Rs. 400. An objection was taken to the valuation on the ground that the value of the property exceeded Rs. 4,000 and that therefore the suit was not cognizable by the Munsif in whose Court it had been instituted. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that this objection was sound and he directed that the plaint...
Seth Ganga Sagar, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: [1934]2ITR155(All)
BENNET, J. - This is an application by an assessee in income-tax for this Court to require the Commissioner of Income Tax to state a case under Section 66 (3), Income Tax Act, XI of 1922. In stating the case the Income Tax Commissioner states the facts and on these facts this Court comes to a finding on a point of law. It is not open to this Court to find facts for itself. At the most under sub-section (4), Section 66, if the Court is not satisfied with the statement in a case the Court may ask for an additional statement or alterations. In the present case the assessee in his application to this Court states that he carries on banking and money-lending business, and for the purpose of that business the assessee sells and purchases shares and Government securities; that for the last 30 years shares in different companies have been purchased from time to time by the assessees father and after his death by the assessee, and at present the assessee owns about Rs. 13 lacs of shares at par ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »