Allahabad Court November 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.
Abdul Wahid Khan and anr. Vs. Sher Muhammad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All463
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by, defendants against a decree of a Small Cause Court. The plaintiff executed a sale-deed of certain zamindari property in favour of the defendants on 3rd August 1926. That sale deed contained a covenant that the defendants would pay Rs. 250 of the sale price to a mortgagee of other property. The defendants did not pay and the mortgagee among other remedies obtained an order under Order 34, Rule 6, and realised Rs. 192-13-6 from the plaintiff. The suit was brought on 20th September 1933. The defendants pleaded that they had not paid because the plaintiff did not carry out his part of the sale deed where it was provided that actual possession of certain plots should be given to the defendants. The Court below finds that there was mutation for the defendants in the khewat but that the name of the plaintiff remained in the khatauni for 1337 Fasli and that the plaintiff continued in actual cultivation. The lower Court considered that the defendan...
Desa and anr. Vs. Dhum Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All453
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal from order by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif claiming damages from the defendants for having wrongfully cut down certain trees alleged to belong to the plaintiffs. These trees stood on a certain plot formerly the sir land of defendants 1 and 2. In 1927 there was an auction-sale of the zamindari share of defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs purchased at auction-sale and received dakhalnama on 29th August 1927. This was after Act 3 of 1926. came into force. The land although sir had a grove standing on it planted by defendant's 1 and 2. Subsequently they sold the trees to defendant 3, who cut them down. After the auction-sale rent was assessed by the Revenue Court on the plot as the exproprietary tenancy of defendants 1 and 2. The claim of the plaintiffs was that under the auction-sale the proprietary rights of defendants 1 and 2 in all their groves including the grove in suit passed to the plaintiffs and ...
Nanak Chand Shadiram Vs. Mahabir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All408
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal: from order brought, by an employer against an order, dated 8th April 1933, directing the employer to pay Rupees-393-12-0 only compensation to a widow of one Murli, who it was held died of accident on 26th June 1931 in the employment of the appellant. The facts, are that within six months from the death on 24th August 1931, an application was made to the Collector of Cawnpore by one Mahabir, son of Murli setting out the facts and stating:3. That on his death Murli left as his heirs. Mahabir, applicant, Hanuman, one widow and, one daughter.4. That according to Section 3, Clause A, Section 4, Workmen's Compensation Act, the applicant who is the son of the deceased and manager of his family is entitled to receive compensation to the extent of Rs. 510 from the defendant firm.2. A written statement was taken in reply on 7th January 1933. The Collector passed an order on this application stating:The most important issue is whether Mahabir is entitled to cl...
Bacha Babu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All162
Harris, J.1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess firearms and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder to commit decoities and extortion which are offences under the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy : (a) a revolver and an automatic pistol were stolen on 19th February 1931 and 13th July 1931, respectively; (b) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bha...
Motilal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All267
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mod Lal who has been fined Rs. 50 under Section 179, Penal Code. The sole ground in revision taken is that no offence under that section was committed. The order of the Magistrate shows that Moti Lal accused was produced as a witness in a criminal case, King-Emperor v. Usman, etc. That case had been committed to the Court of Session by another Magistrate in December 1933. Moti Lal was complainant in that case. But on 17 hearings between 21st September, and 6th December 1933, he refused to answer questions as a witness because he alleged he was suffering from, pain in his stomach. On two dates he was examined by a doctor who found that he was all right. The case therefore was committed to Sessions without the statement of Moti Lal the complainant, being recorded. On 26th February 1934, the Magistrate sent for Moti Lal who was produced before him and he desired to take the statement of Moti Lal under Section 219, Criminal P.C. T...
Bachcha Babu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.369
1. In this case which has been referred to as the Agra Conspiracy Case all six appellants were charged with conspiracy, the charge being that between February 1931 and August 1932 at Agra, they jointly and severally agreed and conspired together with one another and with Dau Dayal, who is absconding, and also with Uma Shankar, Ram Nath and Vishwa Nath, approvers, and with other persons known or unknown and not before the Court, to do or cause to be done jointly and severally illegal acts, the illegal acts being to collect and possess fireaims and ammunition and explosive substances, to commit attempts to murder, to commit dacoities and extortion which are offences under the Aims Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Penal Code. In the charge it was further alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy: (a) a revolver and an automatic, pistol were stolen on February 19, 1931, and July 13, 1931, respectively; (6) a dacoity was committed in the godown of Manohar Bhagat Dhyan ...
Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All523; 157Ind.Cas.116
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax on a direction of this Court on an application made by an assessee. The facts are somewhat complicated. There is a joint family in Muttra which has various firms and one of these firms is styled Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal. This firm Parbhu Lai Pearey Lal has been in existence with effect from the year 1932-33. Previous to that there was no separation in the joint family and the joint family was somewhat loosely described as Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal. An assessment was made for the year 1931-32 on the income of year and in making that assessment the income-tax officer of Muttra found in the books of the joint family a certain Khata called Onkar Mai Babu Lal, Sir account which stood as follows: Credit Rs. 78,910-2-9 Debit Rs. 47,299-14-0 Profit Rs. 81,610-4-9 ___________________ Total Rs. 73,910-2-9. ___________________2. Enquiries were made from Bombay and it was found that the Bombay firm of Onkar Mai Bau Lal had heavy loss...
Parbhu Lal Peary Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and Unite ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR197(All)
NIAMATULLAH, J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax on a direction of this Court on an application made by an assessee. The facts are somewhat complicated. There is a joint family in Muttra which has various firms and one of those firms is styled Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal. This firm Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal has been in existence with effect from to the year 1932-33. Previous to that there was no separation in the joint family and the joint family was somewhat loosely described as Parbhu Lal Pearey Lal. An assessment was made for the year 1931-32 on the income Tax Officer of Muttra found in the books of the joint family a certain khata called Onkar Mal Babu Lal sir account which stood as follows :-Rs. A. P. Credit ... ... ... ... 78,910 2 9 Debit ... ... ... ... 47,299 14 0 Profit ... ... ... ... 31,610 4 9 TOTAL ... 78,910 2 9 Enquiries were made from Bombay and it was found that the Bombay firm of Onkar Mal Babu Lal had heavy losses during the year under assessment and th...
S. Afzal HusaIn Vs. Chhedi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All792
1. This is a first appeal brought by one Chaudhari Saiyid Afzal Husain the sole plaintiff and continued after his death, by his son, Chaudhari Saiyid Iqbal Husain, who was defendant 2. The contesting respondent, defendant 1 is Chhedi Lal. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff, Afzal Husain, was the owner in possession of the-property in the list attached to the plaint and that on 18th January 1919, he executed a 'wakf' 'alal aulad' that is. wakf for his descendants of the property dividing the property into two portions. One village Mauza Samorai, Mahal Rustam Ali, and certain houses and groves were dedicated for religious and charitable purposes. The plaint does not mention further in regard to the other wakf property, but the deed, of wakf printed on p. 57 shows that the 26 remaining villages were created, a wakf for the benefit of the family of the plaintiff and he was made the first mutawalli with defendant 2 to succeed him. When the family should become extinct, there was a gift ...
Chaudhari S. Afzal HusaIn and After His Death Chaudhari Syed Iqbal Hus ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.791
1. This is a first appeal brought by one Chaudhari Saiyid Afzal Husain, the sole plaintiff, and continued after his death by his son, Chaudhri Saiyid Tabal Husain, who was defendant No. 2. The contesting respondent, defendant No. 1 is Chhedi Lai. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff, Afzal Husain, was the owner in possession of the property in the list attached to the plaint and that on January IP, 1919, he executed a 'waqf 'alal aulad' that is, waqf for bis descendants of the property dividing the property into two portions. One village Mavza Samorai, Mahal Rustam Ali, and certain houses and groves were dedicated for religious and charitable purposes. The plaint does not mention further in regard to the other waqf property, but the deed of waqf printed on page 57 shows that the 26 remaining villages were created a waqf for the benefit of the family of the plaintiff and he was made the first mutawalli with defendant No. 2 to succeed him. When the family should become extinct, there w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »