Allahabad Court March 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.
Kedar Nath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All521; 159Ind.Cas.287
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal by Kedar Nath who has been sentenced, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 41/2 years under Section 471, read with. Section 467, Penal Code, that is. for the offence of using as genuine documents which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents. It appears that one Ram Das filed two suits for arrears of rent against the appellant in the Court of the Tahsildar of Soram in the Allahabad District, viz., suit Nos. 556 and 557 of 1933. The appellant produced five receipts to prove payment of the amounts alleged to be due from him. Two of these receipts were admitted by Ram Das and the other three Exs. A.B and D were denied. Thereafter the appellant did not put in an appearance as defendant to the suits and he made no attempt to prove the three receipts which had been denied. On 17th May 1934, both suits were decreed after making allowance for the sums paid and acknowledged under the two receipts which, had been admitted. The appellant was then...
Gopal Sahai Vs. Nasir UddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All560
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff brought a suit under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act, for his share of profits against the defendant 2, Nasiruddin, as a cosharer in possession under a usufructuary mortgage. The Revenue Court granted a decree to the plaintiff for a certain amount of mesne profits. The facts apparent from the pleadings, which are admitted by learned Counsel in this Court for the parties to be correct, are that the khewat number in question consisted of 7 biswanis 8 tanwansis and was held originally by defendant 1, Chhidda Khan, and Chhidda Khan was in cultivating possession of the total area 36 biswas odd in this khewat number 24/6. Clidda Khan executed a usufructuary mortgage of 2 biswansis 8 tanwansis share in favour of defendant 2, Nasiruddin, and he executed a qabuliat agreeing to pay rent to defendant 2 of Rs. 95-2-9 per annum for a portion of the cultivated land in this khewat nu...
(Firm) Ram Sahai Ram Ratan Vs. Imami
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All586; 157Ind.Cas.526
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against, a decree of the appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a fuit setting out that the plaintiff was thekadar of an enclosure No. 66 known as Mandi Qaziganj together with a house in the enclosure, that Imam defendant was occupying a Kotihri in the said enclosure on a rent of Re. 1-4-0 per mensem, that there was a quarrel between the parties and on 5th June 1929. the plaintiff sent a notice by registered post, to defendant to vacate the Kothri by the end of June 1929 and to pay the rent which was due from March 1929, that, in reply to the notice defendant, wrote stating that he was not a tenant of the said Kothri but that he was a tenant of the land and the owner of the Kothri and that the rent was due year by year for the land. The plaintiff asked for possession of the Kothri and Rs. 5 arrears of rent and Rs. 5 damages. The written statement set out that plaintiff was not the owner of the hous...
Mukand Lal Vs. Gaya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All599
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench on account of a divergence in the opinions expressed in two cases of this Court and that expressed in the Bombay High Court. The applicants applied to this Court praying that a certain witness, who was being examined in the Court below, should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on all the issues that arose in two connected suits. These two suits were being tried together, but the Court had perhaps passed some orders previously that evidence should be led by the plaintiffs in one suit on the issues arising in that suit or issues which were common to both the suits. When the witness, Bhagwan Das, was being cross-examined, the applicants' counsel tried to put questions to him relating to issues which arose exclusively in the other suit, and the Court disallowed such questions.2. The application in the High Court did not profess to have been filed under any specific provision of the law; but the learned Counsel admitted that...
Braj Kishore Upadhia and ors. Vs. Panchaiti Akhara Maha Nirwani Firqa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All666
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for possession over plot No. 196 of Abadi and parti land described in the plaint by removal of the defendants' cattle troughs and thatch. The parties were co-sharers. A partition took place between the parties and other cosharers in 1926. The plot in dispute was allotted to the patti of the plaintiff at the time of the partition. There was at the time of partition a bagar 'of the defendants' on the plot in dispute. The plaintiff brought this suit on the allegation that he was obstructed by the defendants when he wanted to make some constructions on the plot in dispute. The defendants contended that they had their bagar on the plot in suit and therefore they had a right to remain in possession. The trial Court decreed the suit partly for possession over the plot except over that portion on which the defendants' chhappar stood. A cross-objection was filed by the plainti...
Braj Kishore Upadhia and ors. Vs. Panohaiti Akhara Maha Nirwani Firqa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.667
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for possession over plot No. 196 of Abadi and Parti land described in the plaint by removal of the defendants' cattle troughs and thatch. The parties were co-sharers. A. partition took place between the parties and other co-sharers in 1926. The plot in dispute was allotted to the patti of the plaintiff at the time of the partition. There was at the time of partition a Bagar of the defendants' on the plot in dispute. The plaintiff brought this suit on the allegation that he was obstructed by the defendants when he wanted to make some constructions on the plot in dispute. The defendants contended that they had their Bagar on the plot in suit and therefore they had a right to remain in possession. The trial Court decreed the suit partly for possession over the plot except over that portion on which the defendants' chhappar stood. A cross-objection was filed by the plaint...
Pyare Lal Vs. Bibi Amna Khatun Begum
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All753; 158Ind.Cas.42
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act. The facts as stated in the order of reference and as admitted by counsel on both sides are as follows : A certain mahal, or a portion thereof, was sold nearly a 100 years ago. One of the convenants in the sale-deed was that the vendor would retain a portion of the land included in the mahal, or part thereof, as the case may be, and that the vendee should pay the Land revenue in respect of the land thus reserved to the vendor. The vendee and his representatives have hitherto paid the revenue in terms of the covenant already mentioned. There was a settlement in 1308 fasli. In making the assessment it was noted by the settlement officer that the vendee had been paying the revenue in respect of the lands in possession of the vendor and would continue to do so in future. Recently the representatives of the vendees appear to have reconsidered their position and instituted a suit for recovery of...
inderjit Rai and ors. Vs. Gajadhar Raj and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All967
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants first and second parties against a decree in favour of the plaintiffs by the lower appellate Court. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The plaintiffs and defendants second party are co-sharers' in a mahal. On 27th June 1930, the defendants second party executed a permanent lease in favour of defendants first party of four bighas odd of agricultural land, not land in the village abadi, for the purpose of building at a single premium of Rs. 1,651. The plaintiffs brought a suit without delay on 1st August 1931. In the plaint and written statement it is common ground that the land was agricultural ground previous to the lease. The plaint alleged that the land had been formerly occupied by tenants who were joint tenants of the parties, and the written statements allege that the lands had been the exclusive sir or khudkasht of defendants second party. On both these allegations the land was agricultural land. The lower appellate Court...
Partap Ahir and anr. Vs. Gopi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All943; 159Ind.Cas.647
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants under the following circumstances : The plaintiffs, two co-sharers, brought a suit against the two defendants alleging that the plaintiffs were co-sharers of a share of 14 annas odd in a certain village and, that the plaintiffs and other co-sharers possessed a certain No. 101 which was. pond land and that the defendants had no concern with it; that in Asarh 1333F in spite of the remonstrances of the servants of the plaintiffs the defendants without any right forcibly ploughed the entire plot and did not allow it to be cultivated on behalf of the plaintiffs, and since 1333F the defendants had been sowing crops in this number. The suit was brought three years later on 17th January 1929, the possession having been taken by the defendants in July 1926. The plaint set out the area of the plot as 2 bighas 19 3/4 dhurs. The plaint claimed possession of this area from the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs and Rs. 205-5-6 damag...
Shivanath Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Central and United Pro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All572
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 66(3) Income-tax Act for an order of this Court requiring the Income-tax Commissioner to state a case under Section 66(2) of the same Act. The applicant was assessed to tax by the income-tax officer. He preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner after more than thirty days from the-date of the notice of demand. The Assistant Commissioner fixed a date-calling upon the assessee to show cause why the appeal should not be rejected as one filed beyond time. On the date so fixed and alter hearing the assessee the appeal was rejected. The assessee applied to the Income-tax Commissioner for revision of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. His application was dismissed. lie then applied to the Income-tax Commissioner for statement of case under Section 66(1). This application was also rejected. Thereupon he filed the present application.2. It has already been held by this Bench of Jot Ram Sher Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1934 All. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »