Allahabad Court May 1937 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.
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Through Madan Mohan Seth Vs. Chotey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All728
Collister, J.1. These are three connected second appeals by a plaintiff, namely, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. It appears that in Shahjahanpur there are two girls' schools or pathshalas of the Arya Samaj, one in Mohalla Dilawarganj and the other in Mohalla Bahadurganj. There are also some shops of the Arya Samaj, the income' whereof is utilized for the upkeep of the Bahadurganj School. The school in Dilawarganj has no building of its own; it is conducted in a rented building. The school in Bahadurganj has its own building. The managing and governing body of the Arya Samaj at Shahjahanpur is known as the Arya Vidya Up Sabha.2. In 1927 Chotey Lal respondent 1 and men of his party were asserting themselves to be office-bearers of this institution. On 29th June 1926 the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha instituted Suit No. 266 of 1927 against Chotey Lal and others, the plaint being signed by one Tinku Lal as special attorney. It was alleged in the plaint that although in 1926 Chotey Lal defendant 1 was t...
Haji Mohammad Ibrahim and ors. Vs. M. Khan Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.528
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is, a Stamp Reference by the Taxing Officer of the following question:Are remissions of revenue granted by the Government in any particular year to be considered in calculating the value under Section 7(v), Court Fees Act?2. The section in question, Section 7(v)(b), states:Where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled but not permanently--five times the revenue so payable.3. The five times has been altered by local legislation to six times. Now the words to be interpreted are 'the revenue so payable'. Grammatically the words 'so payable' must refer to something which has gone before and the references to revenue are firstly 'paying annual revenue' and secondly 'such revenue is settled' . The latter mention of revenue is closest to the expression under consideration, and by another rule of grammar it is the word wh...
Abdul Naseer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.934
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application by Abdul Naseer for the transfer of Criminal Case No. 575 of 1926 King-Emperor v. Ghulam and Anr.--which is pending in the Court of Mr. P.C. Misra, Magistrate, First Class, Cawnpore, to any other Court. The chief ground on which the transfer is sought is that the learned Magistrate did not allow the Prosecuting Inspector to put certain questions in re-examination to the complainant who was examined as one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has given reasons in detail for disallowing the questions. The chief reason was that the question which the Prosecuting Inspector wished to put to the witnesses had not arisen from any ambiguity in any answer in the cross-examination. The witness, it appears, had made some damaging admissions which the Prosecuting Inspector wished to get over and consequently he wished to put certain questions which did not arise from the cross examination. The learned Magistrate was quite justifi...
Ram Dayal Sonar Vs. Sukh Mangal Kalwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All676
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff who has a very strange objection, which his counsel cannot explain, to having his case beard by the ordinary civil Court; possibly it may be that he thinks it would be desirable to prevent any right of appeal. He brought a suit for arrears of rent in the Small Cause Court at Basti and the written statement pleaded in the additional pleas that the plaintiff was not the owner of the house in question. On that pleading issue 1 was framed : Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house?' On this issue the Small Cause Court has held that the cognizance of the Small Cause Court is barred by Section 23(1), Small Cause Courts Act. That sub-section provides that:When the rights of a plaintiff depend upon the proof of a title to immoveable property...the Court may return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title.2. There is no doubt that as the Court below has framed this issue and the issue does a...
Kishun Prasad Vs. Mt. Shubratan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All696
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court reversing a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of a house alleging that she was the owner of a half share therein. The learned Munsif dismissed the claim but the learned Civil Judge reversed the decision of the Court of first instance and decreed the-claim for partition to the extent of a 2/5th share. The facts as found establish that this house was originally owned by one Maula Bakhsh who left two sons-Mahibullah and Abdul Latif. By a sale deed dated 8th July 1931, Abdul Latif transferred his share in the property which he alleged was one-half to the plaintiff. The defence was that Abdul Latif was not the son of Maula Bakhsh and that consequently the plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in the disputed house. It was further pleaded that if Abdul Latif had a share in the disputed house ...
Kazim Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All731
1. This is an appeal by Kazim Ali Khan and Nisar Ahmad, defendants 1 and 3, against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar on a suit brought by the plaintiffs, Om Prakash and Kailash. Their claim for the recovery of possession over the plaint property and certain mesne profits was allowed. The principal plea taken in defence in the Court below as well as before us was that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. In order to appropriate this plea as well as the other pleas taken by the defendants, it is necessary to state in some detail the anterior history which has given rise to the present suit.2. It appears that one Raghunandan Prasad was the owner of some zamindari property which after his death came into the possession of his sons, Chandra Shekhar and Ghanshyam Das. These two executed three mortgages in the years 1905 and 1906 in favour of the defendants, and the mortgaged property was comprised in several khewats, viz. Nos. 20, 26 ...
Sm. Rajmani Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All770
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, 11 of 1922. The proceedings in connection with which the reference arose were proceedings under Section 27 of the Act and the assessment year was the year 1932-33 ending with Chait 1989. The assessee was one Lala Ramji Das who was a banker and carried on money lending business on an extensive scale. He maintained his accounts by the year ending on 15th Chait which corresponds roughly with the financial year. The previous year or the accounting year would in the present case end with 15th Chait 1988.2. When the assessment began, Ramji Das was alive, but he died on 9th April 1933, and the application under Section 27 which was submitted by Eamji Das was continued by his widow Mt. Rajmani Devi. The Income-tax Officer dismissed the application under Section 27 on 13th April 1934 and an appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24th July 1934. On 27th August 1934 the assessee filed a combi...
Rajmani Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR631(All)
This is a reference under 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, XI of 1922. The proceedings in connection with which the reference arose were proceedings under Sec. 27 of the Act and the assessment year was the year 1932-33 ending with Chait 1989. The assessee was one Lala Ramji Das who was a banker and carried on money-lending business on an extensive scale. He maintained his accounts by the year ending on the 15th Chait which corresponds roughly with the financial year. The previous year or the accounting year would in the present case end with the 15th of Chait 1388. When the assessment began Ramji Das was alive, but he died on April 9, 1933, and the application under Sec. 27 which was submitted by Ramji Das was continued by his widow Mst. Rajmani Devi. The Income tax Officer dismissed the application under Sec. 27 on April 13, 1934, and an appeal against the said decided was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on July 24, 1934. On August 27, 1934, the assessee filed a combined ap...
Bal Singh Vs. Nawab Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All688
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against concurrent decrees of the lower Courts passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act, to eject the defendant from a certain piece of land upon the ground that the latter was a mere trespasser and had no right whatsoever to be in possession of the land in question. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion that the defendant was a co-sharer in the village to the extent of 1/32, but they found that as the defendant had not obtained the express consent of the lambardar to assume possession of this land, he could be ejected at the suit of the plaintiffs.2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiffs respondents that no appeal lay to this Court as no question of proprietary right arose in the case and therefore the appeal should have been preferred in the Court of the Commissioner. I have been referred to the pleadings and it is clear that the defendant claimed title ...
A.H. Ghaznavi and anr. Vs. Sardar Gurcharan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All691
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against an appellate order of the District Judge dated 26th April 1935 confirming an order of the Civil Judge dated 18th February 1933 refusing to set aside an ex parte decree dated 20th August 1931. It is contended before us on behalf of the applicants that the Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not setting aside the ex parte decree inasmuch as the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing on 20th August 1931. Courts below have considered the excuse offered by the applicants for their absence on 20th August 1931, and they have come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for their absence, The question whether a litigant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing is essentially a question of fact, and this Court cannot interfere in its revisional jurisdicti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›