Allahabad Court September 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.
Piare Lal and ors. Vs. Soney Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All222
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal-by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession-has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The plaint set out that the plaintiffs are co-sharers of onehalf zamindari share and defendant 3 is the co-sharer of the other half-share and also the lambardar in a Mahal. That Debi Prasad was an occupancy tenant who died 'about two years' before the plaint (dated 8th November 1927), leaving no issue, and his widow Mt. Champa Kunwar became occupancy tenant for her-life. That she died in July 1927 and as the holding was unclaimed plaintiffs and defendant 3 became entitled to get possession as zamindars. That Sone Lal, defendant 1, and Ganga Sahai, defendant 2, were collaterals of Debi Prasad who did not share in his cultivation, and that they entered into possession of his holding with the connivance of the lambardar defendant 3, who secretly received Rs. 200 as nazrana. That defendant 3 dishonestly instituted suit No. 156/56 of 1927 against Sone Lal, etc., in th...
Lala Raghunath Sahai Vs. Babu Kunj Behari Lall and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.430
Harries, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Meerut confirming an order of V.R. Mehta, Esqr., Judge, Small Cause Court, dated November 26, 1932, passed in an insolvency matter.2. In 1931 the respondent Ram Saran Das was adjudged an insolvent, and during the insolvency proceedings, the Official Receiver seized the insolvent's alleged interest in certain property. The appellant Raghunath Sahai who is the father of the insolvent objected to this seizure and claimed that he was the so owner of the property seized and that his son had no interest whatsoever in the same. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court overruled this objection and held that the property in question was the joint property of the family and consequently that the insolvent's share in such property was liable to seizure by the Official Receiver. The present appellant appealed to the District Judge of Meerut but his appeal was dismissed and the order of lower Court was confirmed. The appellant...
Rahmat and ors. Vs. Ambika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All13
Bajpai, J.1. This is a defendants appeal. The plaintiffs brought a suit in the Civil Court for recovery of possession of two plots, Nos. 426 and 427, by dispossession of the defendants and for Rs. 25 as damages. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been in possession of these plots for a number of years and that they lie within the zamindari share of Ambika Prasad Bansi, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs went on to say that the defendants in collusion with and at the instigation of Pirthi Singh and Mt. Dhanraji Kunwar uprooted the crops sown by the plaintiffs and had forcibly and wrongfully taken possession of the land in suit. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the plaintiffs' version appears to be correct, that the plaintiff's were in possession for a considerable time and that the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants who damaged the plaintiffs' sowings. Upon these findings the plaintiffs were given a decree for possession and for Rs. 7 as damages which ...
Kuber Singh and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Bhunja and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All215; 159Ind.Cas.19
Bajpai, J.1. One Sheo Nath for himself and on behalf of his brothers Ram Chandra and Sheo Ram executed a perpetual lease in favour of the defendants on an annual rental and on payment of a nazrana of Rs. 1,000 on 25th April 1922. The plaintiff Ram Chandra brought the present suit for possession of the property-leased out to the defendants on the ground that the lease was invalid inasmuch as the family of the three brothers was separate and Sheo Nath alone was not entitled to grant a lease on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaint then went on to say that if the family be deemed to be joint, then there was no legal necessity for the transfer and finally it was contended that the transfer was of occupancy plots, and as such, forbidden by law.2. Courts below have found that the family was joint and it would appear from the judgment of the trial Court that he was of the opinion that the family was joint even at the time of the institution of the suit. It was held that in the case of brothers ...
Mt. Ruwaiya Khatun and ors. Vs. Mt. Maqbul Fatma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All217
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal under the following circumstances. There was a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the City Munsif of Bareilly for possession of a certain house, and the learned Munsif decreed that suit. An appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge passed an order of remand stating that the judgment was not very clear; that there was a difficulty about boundaries, that the point for decision is whether in the litigation of 1904 Mansur Husain referred only to the unshaded portion as belonging to Maqbul Fatima, etc., and then proceeded to state:The lower Court is to decide whether the defendants (a woman with minor children) are allowed to file papers discovered in the almirah of Mansur Hussain who died in 1920. File to be returned within six weeks. If the defendants are allowed to produce further evidence, the same permission to be given to the plaintiffs. (Sd.) P.C. Plowden, April 1, 1931.2. The learned Subordinate ...
Musammat Ruqaiya Khatun and ors. Vs. Musammat Maqbul Fatma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.202
1. This is a Letters patent Appeal under the following circumstances. There was a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the City Munsif of Bareiliy for possession of a certain house, and the learned Munsif decreed that suit. An appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge and the learned District Judge passed an order of remand stating that the judgment was not very clear, that there was a difficulty about boundaries, that the point for decision is whether in the litigation of 1904 Mansur Husain referred only to the unshaded portion as belonging to Maqbul Fatima, etc., and then proceeded to state:The lower Court is to decide whether the defendants (a woman with minor children) are allowed to file papers discovered in the almirah of Mansur Hussain who died in 1920. File to be returned within six weeks. If the defendants are allowed to produce further evidence, the same permission to be given to the plaintiffs. (Sd.) P.C. Plowden, April 1, 1931.2. The learned Subordinate ...
In Re: B, an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1037; 159Ind.Cas.653
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application by an advocate who by an order of the majority of the Judges constituting a Full Bench has been suspended for a period of six months, and who prays that the High Court be pleased to hold that the said order is ultra vires and the Bar Council Tribunal's findings should be deemed to be operative and subsisting.2. The learned advocate for the applicant has to concede that on the judicial side the Chief Justice would, of course, have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of a Bench of three Judges. He is therefore compelled to urge that my authority has been invoked on the administrative side, and that the object of the application is that I may, if the opinion that the order of the majority of the Judges is ultra vires, direct the office not to proceed under Section 10, Bar Councils Act, and that no record of this punishment be entered against his name in the roll of advocates.3. The main contention urged on behalf of the advocate...
In Re: Ratan Chand Lallu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All279; 163Ind.Cas.324
Mulla, J.1. By an order dated 16th February 1934 passed by a Bench of this Court, the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed under the provisions of Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, to state a case on certain questions, the Commissioner having refused to state the same on the application of the assessee under Section 66(1). The questions formulated by this Court are: (1) Whether the payments made by M. K. Khanna from 16th November 1923 to 9th September 1927 were rightly taken into account in making the assessment for the year in question, 1931-32. (2) Whether in law the partition of the family was effected from the date of the decree or award, or from the year 1921 as held by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. (3) Whether Rs. 44,611-9-9 realized from M. K. Khanna in Section 1980-'81 is liable to income-tax as the income or profit of the assessee, or is this sum exempt from income-tax under Section 14, Income-tax Act.2. The case has now been stated by the Commissioner which is the...
Ratanchand Lallumal, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: [1936]4ITR189(All)
MULLA, J. - By an order dated February 16, 1934, passed by a bench of this Court the Commissioner of Income Tax was directed under the provision of section 66 (3) of the Indian Income Tax Act to state a case on certain questions, the Commissioner having refused to state the same on the application of the assessee under Section 66 (1). The questions formulated by this Court are :-(1) Whether the payments made by M. K. Khanna from November 16, 1923, to September 9, 1927, were rightly taken into account in making the assessment for the year in question 1931-32 ?(2) Whether in law the partition of the family was effected from the date of the decree or award, or from the year 1921 as held by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ?(3) Whether Rs. 44,611-9-9 realised from M. K. Khanna in Sambat 1980-81 is liable to income-tax as the income or profit of the assessee, or is this sum exempt from income-tax under Section 14 of the Income tax Act ?(4) Whether on the facts found the assessee has...
Ahmad Nazar Beg and ors. Vs. Babu Brij Nandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All1040; 159Ind.Cas.680
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts are somewhat peculiar. The plaintiff brought a suit for demolition of certain constructions on plot No. 5 in the Civil Lines of Moradiabad town. The plaint set out in para. 1 that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of resumed milak land, and it was claimed that four plots including plot No. 5 comprised an agricultural tenancy for which the defendants paid a rent of Rs. 35 per annum. The two lower Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the lower appellate Court found that this plot No. 5 was originally part of an agricultural holding which the defendants' predecessor held from the predecessor of the plaintiff, that the bungalow in question had been built many years ago by a person called Mr. John with the consent not of the landlord but of the defendants' predecessor who was a tenant, that subsequently the bungalow had been acqu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »