Allahabad Court August 1936 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 Shakur Vs. Badaruddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All874
1. These two cases have been put up before us because of the report that there are deficiencies in the amounts of the court-fees paid in the Court below. In First Appeal No. 115 of 1932 the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was in the following terms:It may be declared that the properties in suit are waqf-alal-aulad and are not attachable and salable for satisfaction of the debt due by defendant 1 to defendants 4 to 19.2. In First Appeal No.l66 of 1932 the relief claimed was:It may be declared that the property in suit is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and is not fit for attachment and sale in satisfaction of a decree in favour of the respondent against the pro forma defendant.3. In both the suits the plaintiffs paid only Rs. 10 as court-fee for a declaratory ralief. The question is whether the two sums of Rs. 10 paid in the two cases are sufficient. It seems to us that where the relief sought consists of two parts which are such that the first is the foundation for the second an...
Gajraj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All761
ORDERThom, J.1. The applicant Gajraj Singh has been convicted by the stipendiary Magistrate of Banda under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and his licence has been suspended for three months. The charge against the accused was that on 30th September 1935, he was carrying in his lorry 35 passengers which was more than the number sanctioned for his lorry by the Motor Vehicles authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears that a summons was issued against the applicant in which he was charged merely with an offence under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act. The offence was not defined and in the summons the applicant was given no notice of the nature of the charge which was to be preferred against him. In other words, he was hauled before the Court, tried and convicted without the ordinary notice, to which every accused is entitled before being put upon trial. It appears that there is a practice in this Province to issue summons under the Motor Vehicles...
Randhir Singh and anr. Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All206
ORDER1. This case has been put up before this Bench for the consideration whether the court-fee paid in the Court below on this claim was sufficient. The suit was for the recovery of a three-fourth, out of two-third share in khewat No. 1/2 by pre-emption. The Inspector of Stamps-has submitted that the case comes under Section 7(v)(d), whereas the Stamp Reporter has suggested that the case should fall, under Section 7(v)(b), Court-fees Act. The; case would be governed by Sub-section (b), if the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual, revenue to Government or forms part off such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, but would be governed by Sub-section (d) if it. forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as aforementioned. The distinction, in our opinion, is perfectly obvious. Where there is an estate paying annual revenue to Government and a fractional share of that es...
Kanhaiya Lal and anr. Vs. Mr. Thomas Skinner and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All806; 165Ind.Cas.645
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that decrees Nos. 475 and 497 of 1925 passed by the High Court of Allahabad be declared to be null and ineffectual as against the plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the suit may be briefly stated. Certain property was sold to Lala Kanhaiya Lal, the plaintiff in the present suit, and Gobind Swarup, defendant 2 of the present suit. Thomas Skinner, defendant 1 of this suit enforced his right of pre-emption in respect of that sale. The trial Court gave a decree for possession of the pre-empted property subject to the payment of Rs. 16,268 to the vendees by Thomas Skinner. Both Thomas Skinner, the plaintiff of that suit, and the two vendees, namely Kanhaiya Lal and Gobind Swarup, filed appeals in the High Court. It is said in the present suit that at the time when the appeals were filed Thomas Skinner was insane, but nobody acted as his next friend either in the appeal filed by Thomas Skinner or as his guardian when Thomas ...
Bishen Dayal Vs. Kesho Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All176
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession of one-half share in certain properties which were admittedly sold at auction and purchased in the name of Kesho Prasad, defendant 1. The plaintiff is the son of a daughter of Ram Dayal who was Kesho Prasad's uncle. It is admitted by both the parties that Ram Dayal and Kesho Prasad were separate and did not form members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff's case as put forward in the plaint was that the property was put up for sale on several occasions and bids were made, but they were not ultimately accepted as the price offered was considered to be inadequate; but finally the highest bid was accepted on 20th July 1907 on which occasion Ram Dayal was absent andKesho Prasad, defendant 1 called out bids on his own behalf and on behalf of Ram Dayal, and that the said sale was confirmed. (Para. 5 of the plaint.)2. His case was that the said property was jointly held by Ram Dayal and the defendants as a family pr...
Bishan Dayal Vs. Kesho Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.683
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession of one half share in certain property which were admittedly sold at auction and purchased in the name of Kesho Prasad, defendant No 1. The plaintiff is the son of a daughter of Ram Dayal who was Kesho Prasad's uncle. It is admitted by both the parties that Ram Dayal and Kesho Prasad were separate and did not form members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs case as put forward in the plaint was that the property was put up for sale on several occasions and bids were made, but they were not ultimately accepted as the price offered was considered to be inadequate; but finally the highest bid was accepted on July 20, 1907 on which occasion Ram Dayal was absent andKesho Prasad, defendant No. 1, called out bids on his own behalf and on behalf of Ram Dayal, and that the said sale was confirmed. (Paragraph 5 of the plaint).2. His case was that the said property was jointly held by Ram Dayal and the defendants as a f...
Mufti Mahomed Aslam Khalifa Mandi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All817
ORDER1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has on his motion under Section 66 CO, Income-tax Act, referred the following two questions to this Court for decision: (1) Whether on the facts of the case stated below (i. e. in his statement of the case) the various cosharers owning the mandi known as the Khalifa Mandi at Allahabad constitute an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3, Income-tax Act? (2) If the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, whether in view of the fact that Mufti Mohammad Aslam has subsequently to the issue and service of the notice under Section 2(12), Income-tax Act, 1922, transferred his proprietary interest to his wife, the Income-tax Officer is debarred from treating him as the Principal Officer of the association within the meaning of the section quoted above?2. The Khalifa Mandi consists in some shops, houses and a piece of open ground on which a market is held. It originally belonged to one Mufti Karim Quli who died in 1860. It a...
Mukandi Lal and ors. Vs. Hashmat-un-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All832; 166Ind.Cas.283
Sulaiman, C.J.1. These are two applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decrees of this Court in two appeals which were connected and heard together and disposed of practically by one judgment. A suit was brought by the present appellant for recovery of possession of the property on the ground that he was the next reversioner of the last male owner. The defendants were transferees from a person who was claiming to have been the adopted son of the deceased. The trial Court held that the adoption was not proved and accordingly decreed the claim. On appeal this Court held that the adoption had been proved and accordingly dismissed the whole suit. But in this Court two sets of defendants had appealed separately although the decree of the Court below was a joint one. No question of legal necessity for the transfer at all arose and therefore the decree of the High Court proceeds on one ground common to all the defendants, and the suit was instituted on the basis of...
Mohammad Aslam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, United Provinces.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: [1936]4ITR412(All)
COLLISTER, J. - The Commissioner of Income Tax has on his motion under Section 66 (1) of the Income Tax Act referred the following two questions to this Court for decision :-'(1) Whether on the facts of the case stated below (i.e., in his statement of the case) the various co-shares owning the Mandi known as the Khalifa Mandi at Allahabad constitute an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act (2) If the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, whether in view of the fact that Mufti Mohammad Aslam has, subsequently to the issue and service of the notice under Section 2 (12) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, transferred his proprietary interest to his wife, the Income Tax Officer is debarred from treating him as the principal officer of the association within the meaning of the section quoted above ?'The Khalifa Mandi consists in some shops, houses and a piece of open ground on which a market is held. It originally belonged to one Mufti Karim...
Mufti Muhammad Aslam Khalifa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.969
ORDER1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has on his motion under Section 66 (1), Income Tax Act, referred the following two questions to this Court for decision : (1) Whether on the facts of the case stated below (i.e. in his statement of the case) the various co-sharers owning the mandi known as the Khalifa Mandi at Allahabad constitute an association of individuals within the meaning of Section 3, Income Tax Act? (2) If the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, whether in view of the fact that Mufti Muhammad Aslam has subsequently to the issue and service of the notice under Section 2 (12), Income Tax Act, 1922, transferred his proprietary interest to his wife, the Income Tax Officer is debarred from treating him as the Principal Officer of the association within the meaning of the section quoted above?2. The Khalifa Mandi consists in some shops, houses and a piece of open on which a market to held. It originally belonged to one Mufti Karim Quli whodied in 1860. It appear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »