Allahabad Court January 1934 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.
Jot Ram Sher Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: [1934]2ITR129(All)
The following judgments were delivered.NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is an application by a firm styled Jot Ram Sher Singh of Muzaffarnagar, under Section 66 (3) of the Income Tax Act, for an order requiring the Commissioner of Income Tax to state a case and to refer certain questions for decision by this Court.The case relates to the assessment of income-tax on the applicants for the year 1930-31. The assessees made a return, in which they showed a loss of Rs. 2,845-5-0 in 1929-30. They had to be assessed on the income of the preceding year, i.e., 1929-30, corresponding to the Sambat year 1986. A notice was issued under Section 23 (2) requiring them to prove the correctness of their return. They produced certain accounts, and were assessed, on May 23, 1930 on an income of Rs. 5,113. The order of assessment recorded by the Income-tax Officer, shows that the account books for 1986 Sambat were before him. Whether complete accounts had been produced or those for a particular branch of the assess...
ishwar Das and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1934
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1135
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Bench of a Special Magistrates of Meerut requiring that both the accused should appear in person to make an explanation under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. Prior to the order the attendance of the accused had been excused under Section 205, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 205(2) states:But the Magistrate enquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and if necessary, enforce such attendance in manner hereinbefore provided.2. Section 342 lays down:For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing, in the evidence against him, the Court.... shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.3. The language used is compulsory as it is stated that the Court shall question him...
Madan Mohan Lal Vs. Asa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All445
Mukerji, J.1. This is an execution second appeal and arises in the following circumstances : The appellant, Madan Mohan Lal, applied as the purchaser of it, for execution of a decree for money which has been passed in favour of Poona Mai against Asa Ram. The transferee made an application for execution under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C. As directed by that rule, a notice was issued to the judgment-debtor to show cause why the decree should not be executed at the instance of Madan Mohan Lal. The judgment-debtor pleaded that he had satisfied the decree by payment out of Court to the decree-holder, Poona Mai, before Poona Mai transferred the decree to Madan Mohan Lal. The Courts below have held that this alleged payment was actually made to Poona Mai and that therefore the decree was satisfied and there was no decree for Poona Mai to transfer to Madan Mohan Lal. In this Court it is contended that the alleged payment of Asa Ram to Poona Mai was never certified or recorded and that therefo...
Ram Prasad Ram and anr. Vs. Jadunandan Upadhia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All534
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an execution appeal by judgment-ebtors. A compromise decree fixing the payments of certain instalments on specified dates was passed. The decree further provided that in case of default of two consecutive instalments the decree-holder would have the right to recover the whole amount by execution. The dates fixed for payment were : 6th June 1925, 13th June 1926, 15th June 1927, 3rd June 1928, 22nd June 1929, 11th June 1930, 31st May 1931 and 18th June 1932.2. The decree-holder filed the present application on 21st May 1931 in which he mentioned all the instalments but separated the first three from the rest by means of cross-marks. He did not indicate in his application that it was his case that these instalments were barred by time or that they had been paid, but it is a fact that he did not ask for recovery of these instalments. The judgment-debtors took objection that the application was barred by time because the right to apply accrued when the second defaul...
(Firm) Bansi Dhar Kunji Lal Vs. Lalta Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All543; 150Ind.Cas.433
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed against one set of defendants 1 to 3, and has been decreed only against defendants 4 and 5. The pedigree of the defendants is as follows: Sarju Prasad | |----------------------------------| Bechulal (dead) Lalta Prasad, D. 1 | | |-----------| | Baldeo Lachmi |-----------------| (monor) Narain Kalu Ram Ram Narain D. 4 (monor) D.2 (monor) D.3 D. 52. The plaintiff is a firm in Cawnpore, and he was in the habit of supplying for a number of years groceries to two firms as set out in para. 1 of the plaint. One of these firms was called Sarju Prasad Bechu Lal, situated in the town of Bahraich, and the other firm was called Bechu Lal Lalta Prasad, situated in the town of Chilwaria in the District of Bahraich. The plaintiff alleges that both these firms belong to a joint Hindu family constituted by all the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the firm at Bahraich is owned only by the branch of Be...
Manohar Singh and ors. Vs. Hakim Riazuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All605; 150Ind.Cas.665
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court because an unreported decision of a Bench of this Court appeared to be inconsistent with the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Lal Rajendra Narain Singh v. Mt Sundara Bibi . In this case the decree-holders had obtained a simple money decree against the judgment debtors who are agriculturists in Bundelkhand. Under Section 16, U.P. Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (2 of 1903), no land belonging to a member of an agricultural tribe shall be 'sold' in execution of a decree or order of any civil or revenue Court. The decree-holder's application for execution by attachment and sale having proved infructuous, he applied for the appointment of a receiver of the judgment-debtor's property. The Munsif granted his application and appointed a receiver and the District Judge on appeal has affirmed that order.2. It is quite dear that the property has not in fact been sold in execut...
Madan Mohan Vs. Kuar Kamla NaraIn Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All520
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by a defendant in a civil suit filed in the Court of the Munsif of Koil. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. In the written statement filed in the Court below a plea was taken that the present suit was barred by Section 10, Civil P.C. owing to the pendency of another suit in which the matter in issue was identical. The Court framed an issue on this point. The third issue framed by the Court below was, 'is the suit barred by Section 10, Civil P.C.' The defendant also made an application to the Court raising the same point and praying that the hearing of the suit should be postponed on account of the previous litigation. The Court by an order, dated 10th June 1932, held that the two suits were for different years and in its opinion the subject matters in dispute in the two suits were different and therefore section 10, Civil P.C. did not apply. It also formally rejected the application for stay.2. So far as the appli...
Parjapati and ors. Vs. Jot Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All539; 150Ind.Cas.814
1. This is a reference for the third time by the Local Government of a case which has been decided three times on appeal by the Commissioner of Kumaun against seven persons who are described as the plaintiffs. The opposite party made an application for partition of an area described as 64 1/16 Nalis in Mauza Srikote. There was an objection filed by certain co-sharers to the effect that 38 10/16 Nalis was their hissedari land and therefore must be excluded from the partition. The trial Court states: 'As a question of proprietary title has been raised by them they were ordered to deposit court-fee, which they did.' These persons who were originally defendants in the suit for partition became nominally plaintiffs in the same Court which proceeded to try their claim that they were proprietors exclusively of the particular area of 38 10/16 Nalis which they claimed. Six issues were framed by the trial Court. Only two of these issues were decided : issue 1, that the suit of the plaintiffs was...
Lala Atma Ram Vs. Beni Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All585; 150Ind.Cas.446
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application praying that pending the disposal of the Privy Council appeal the proceedings in the suit pending in the Court below be stayed. The Collector, as representing the Court of Wards which was in possession of the estate of certain Hindu widows, withdrew the suit brought by him just about the expiry of the period of limitation. A reversioner, Beni Prasad, applied to the Court for being permitted to continue the suit. His application was dismissed, but on revision a Bench of this Court allowed his application and directed that he be brought on the record as the plaintiff in place of the Collector and be permitted to proceed with the suit. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the order passed in revision by this Court has been granted under Section 109(c) and is pending. See : AIR1934All198 . The defendant now applies that the proceedings in the Court below should be stayed till the disposal of Privy Council appeal. A preliminary objection is ...
Balwant Vs. Kehri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All619
Kendall, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, confirming the decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent had sued for a declaration that he was the owner of a 1/5th share in a well, and the evidence showed that the plot in which the well stood had been allotted at a partition in 1915 to the defendant appellant. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a declaration to the effect that he was a co-sharer in the well to the extent of 1/5th and that his status was that of a licensee. The lower appellate Court did in effect modify this order by finding that the position of the plaintiff was that of a licensee and that he was entitled to irrigate the fields on one day in every five days of the week, but did not come to any finding as to the ownership of the well. Nevertheless it dismissed the appeal and it must be held to have intended to confirm the decision of the trial Court.2. As regards the ownership of the well there can be no doubt, as has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »