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.
Gopinath Singh and ors. Vs. ThakurdIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All636; 158Ind.Cas.47
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises from a suit for possession of an occupancy holding. Both the Courts below have dismissed the, plaintiffs' suit. It is common ground, that the occupancy holding in question, originally belonged to one Lallu Singh, who died in 1901 and was succeeded by his widow Nidhao. The latter remained in possession of the occupancy holding till her death in 1919. The plaintiffs alleged that their grand-father, Bahadur, was the nearest collateral of her husband alive at the time of Mussammat Nidhao's death and that he inherited the tenure. The defendants are also collaterals of Lallu, being the sons of one Janki. They are certainly nearer than the plaintiffs; but the plaintiffs' case is that their grandfather Bahadur inherited the tenure on the death of Mussammat Nidhao, when the defendants' father Janki had died. Janki and Nidhao were brothers. The lower Courts have found, or at any rate assumed, that Bahadur was the nearest collateral alive ...
Shivnath Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and United Pro ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.124; [1935]3ITR200(All)
ORDER. - This is an application under Section 66 (3) of the 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 after 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. He then applied to the Income Tax Commissioner for statement of case under Section 66 (2). This application was also rejected. Thereupon he filed the present application.It has already been held by this Bench in Jot Ram Sher Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›