Allahabad Court January 1935 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.
Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Seth Kishan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All299; 159Ind.Cas.66
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a first appeal against a decree passed by the learned first Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for sale upon the basis of a mortgage. It will be convenient to state certain facts in chronological order. On 3rd August 1923, Kishan Lal, the plaintiff, executed a theka or lease in favour of Ran Singh, one of the original defendants, and of Indarjit Singh who is not a party to this suit. The property comprised in this lease was an area of about 150 village bighas in the village of Landhaura and 85 village bighas in the village of Kabirpur Mazra. The lessees were to pay every year a sum of Rs. 310 to the Government as revenue and a sum of Rs. 1,120 to Kishan Lal. On 22nd December 1924, Kishan Lal sold the land in Kabirpur Mazra to a person who is not a party to the suit and on 23rd December 1924, be sold the property in Landhaura for a sum of Rs. 22,000 to Indarjit and to the original defendants 1-4, i.e. Ran Singh, Balwant Singh ...
Sundar Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All438; 157Ind.Cas.422
Kendall, J.1. The three appellants. Sunder Lal. Rati Ram and Ram Din, have been convicted of an offence under Section 304. Penal Code, and have been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment each, and they have appealed against their convictions and sentences. The facts which the learned Sessions Judge has found to be proved are as follows: On the afternoon of 31st March 1934. Ram Sarup, the deceased, drove his cart through a field belonging to Sham Lal and in consequence of this had a quarrel with Sham Lai and his sons, Ratti Ram and and Ram Din. Nothing happened at the time, and Ram Sarup went home. Later in the afternoon Ram Sarup was called from his house by the appellants, who told him to go and settle the matter, and he therefore went to Sheo Shanker's chabutra where the three appellants attacked Ram Sarup hit, him on the head and so killed him. During the attack Mahadeo and Balak Ram came tip and attacked Ram Sarup's assailants, with the result that Rati Ram. Ram Din and Sh...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vijayananda Gajpati Raj Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All464
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Tins is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in an income-tax matter. The value of the subject-matter in dispute is well over Rs. 10,000, and the opinion of the Income-tax Commissioner has not been accepted by the High Court on reference made to it. The learned advocate for the Income-tax Commissioner contends before us that he is, as of right, entitled to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 66 (a), Sub-section (3), Income-tax Act, (Act 11 of 1922). In our opinion this contention is not well founded. The right of appeal is conferred only by Sub-section (2) which provides that an appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council in any case which the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal. This Sub-section does not go on to say, as is provided in Section 109(a) and (b). that an appeal shall lie from any decree or final order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its final appellate or original civil jurisdiction. It follows tha...
B. Bhanes Chandra Singh and anr. Vs. Babunandan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All562; 158Ind.Cas.231
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who object to the procedure adopted by the trial Court in sending the record to the Revenue Court for a finding under Section 273, Agra Tenancy Act, Local Act 3 of 1926. The facts are that the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that a certain plot was owned by them and that the defendants had no concern with it who who might be ordered to remove certain trees and constructions on the same. The defendants alleged that their house stood on a portion of the land in question for a very long time and in another portion nim, jack-fruit, kela, babul trees, bamboo clumps and rubbish heaps stood and in a portion of the land vegetables, etc., were grown. They stated that the plaintiffs' plea, that on the land in question the house of one Ganesh Ahir stood and the said Ganesh Ahir had planted certain jackfruit trees and bamboo clumps with the permission of the zamindar but the defendants recently without theconsent of the zamindar took pos...
Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P. Vs. Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR155(All)
SULAIMAN, C. J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in the income tax matter. The value of the subject-matter in dispute is well over Rs. 10,000 and the opinion of the Income Tax Commissioner has not been accepted by the High Court on reference made to it.The learned advocate for the Income Tax Commissioner contends before us that he is, as of right, entitled to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 66-A, sub-section (3), of the Indian Income Tax Act (XI of 1922). In our opinion this contention is well-founded. The right of appeal is confirmed only by sub-Section (2) which provides that an appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council in any case which the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal. This sub-section does not go on the say, as is provided in Section 109 (a) and (b), that an appeal shall lie form any decree or final order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its final appellate or original civil jurisdiction. It follow...
Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P. and C. P. Vs. Vijayananda Gajapathi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR358(All)
. - This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council in an income tax matter. The value of the subject-matter in dispute is well over Rs. 10,000 and the opinion of the Income Tax Commissioner has not been accepted by the High Court on reference made to it. The learned Advocate for the Income Tax Commissioner contends before us that he is, as of right, entitled to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Section 66-A, Sub-Section (3), Income Tax Act, XI of 1922. In our opinion this contention is not well-founded. The right of appeal is conferred only by Sub-Section (2) which provides that an appeal shall lie to His Majesty in Council in any case which the High Court certificates to be a fit one for appeal. This sub-section does not go on to say, as is provided in Section 109(a) and (b) that the appeal shall lie from any decree or final order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its final appellate or original civil jurisdiction. It follows that the right of appe...
Mt. Qudsia Jan Vs. Zahid HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All545; 155Ind.Cas.38
1. This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, by the Commissioner, Allahabad. The plaintiff instituted a suit against his co-sharers in an exproprietary tenure, in the Court of the Munsif, Allahabad, for his share of the profits. The Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court, holding that the suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the latter Court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who took a contrary view and held that the suit had been rightly instituted in the civil Court. A second appeal was preferred to this Court and came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge who treated the appeal as revision on the ground that no appeal lay to this Court. That learned Judge held that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court as held by the Munsif. Accordingly he set aside the District Judge's order and restored that of the Munsif. The plaintiff then presented his plaint in the Revenue Court. The Assistant Collector before whom the...
Ram Dihal Dubey Vs. Gajraj Updahya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All499; 157Ind.Cas.665
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that an order of ejectment against him and in favour of the defendants passed by the Revenue Court was ineffectual and invalid inasmuch as it had been obtained by fraud. No consequential relief could be asked for, as the holding, from which the plaintiff had been ejected, was an agricultural holding. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim was barred on account of the Revenue Court's decision. On appeal the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case for disposal on the merits. Among other things, the plaintiff had alleged that in the service of the notice issued under Section 81 by the Revenue Court, fraud had been committed, and the process-server was in collusion with the opposite party, and misrepresented to the plaintiff the nature of the proceeding. There were also other allegations that the plaintiff had sent rents by money orders, which ha...
Secy. of State Vs. Simla Footwear Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All601; 157Ind.Cas.1080
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant against whom the lower Courts have passed a decree for Rs. 600 damages. The appellant is the Secretary of State for India-in-council representing the North-Western Railway and the G.I.P. Railway. The facts arc simple. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff, a firm in Agra, sent certain boxes of shoes from Agra Fort to Amritsar, The date of despatch was 26th January 1929, and the consignment arrived on 7th February 1929. Delivery was not taken at Amritsar and on 20th April 1929 the railway company sent a registered notice to the plaintiff stating that the goods (had been sent to the lost property office and that proceedings would be taken under Sections 55 and 56, Railways Act. On 24th April 1929 the plaintiff sent a very indefinite letter to the railways company asking the railway company to retain the goods and stating that delivery would be taken about 1st May. The railway company sent no reply to this letter and the plaintiff took ...
L. Ramsarup and anr. Vs. L. Peare Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All461
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendants arising out of a suit brought on an instalment bond for Rs. 5,000 payable in 10 yeans. The bond contained a provision that half yearly instalments of Rs. 250 would to paid and on default of payment of any two instalments, the whole amount would become payable, and the creditors would be at liberty to sue for the entire amount. Defaults were made for 5 instalments, and a suit for recovery of these instalments, was filed in 1933. In the plaint the creditors expressly mentioned that they were abandoning their right to recover the whole amount in a lump sum and that in future they would sue for the future instalments as they fell due. This suit was decreed. Later on they brought another suit for recovery of one further instalment when it fell due, and it was ultimately withdrawn on condition of the plaintiff's paying the costs of the defendants. The plaint was returned to the plaintiffs, although they had not deposited t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »