Allahabad Court January 1938 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.
Phul Chand Vs. Dharam Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All314
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal arises out of two rival pre-emption suits that were consolidated and disposed of by a single judgment and decree by the trial Court. The suits were to pre-empt a sale dated 19th May 1933. That sale deed was executed by one L. Parduman Kunwar and was with respect to entire khewat No. 1 of mahal Kalyan Singh in village Shadamabad. Shugan Chand, father of Dharam Chand, respondent, owned a 5 biswa haqiyab in village Shadamabad and this 5 biswa haqiyat constituted khata-khewat No. 2 of the mahal mentioned above. The area of khata-khewat No. 2 was 8 bighas and 8 biswas. Shugan Chand executed a sale deed of his 5 biswa haqiyat in favour of Phul Chand appellant. But in the sale deed the area of the property sold was mentioned as 8 bighas 2 biswas only. In the mutation proceedings that followed the execution of the sale deed by Shugan Chand an area of 8 bighas 2 biswas only was entered in the revenue papers in the name of Phul Chand and the remaining 6 biswas of kh...
Mt. Lachhmina Kunwari Vs. Mt. Makfula Kunwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All316; 175Ind.Cas.902
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. In the litigation that has culminated in the present appeal the cardinal question at which the parties were at issue related to the validity or otherwise of a perpetual lease dated 23rd December 1921. The lease was with respect to various agricultural plots of land situated is six villages in the district of Ballia. These villages were owned in equal shares by three sets of persons. Rudra Narain Rai, the husband of Lachhmina Kunwari, plaintiff-appellant, was the owner of a one-third share in each of the six villages, whereas the remaining two-third share in those villages was owned in equal shares by persons who are now represented in the present litigation by defendants first and second sets respectively. The plots covered by the lease were in possession of several occupancy tenants, but it is common ground that before the execution of the lease all those tenants except one died without leaving heirs entitled to succeed under the Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901). One of t...
NaraIn Sarup Vs. Daya Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All256
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal filed by the decree-holder against the judgment of a learned single Judge holding that the appellant Narain Sarup was not competent to apply for the execution of a decree. The facts are shown in P.A. No. 275 of 1927, Badhe Bawan Lal v. Gauri Shankar Lal, in the paper book. On p. 3 there is a pedigree, and there was some property of Mt. Saraswati Kunwar to which a claim of inheritance was made by certain persons who are the sons of her daughters and by one Mt. Misri Kunwar who was a daughter, and objection was taken by one Janaki Prasad claiming as the reversioner of Kanhaiya Lal, the husband of Mt. Saraswati Kunwar. On p. 217 there is a sale deed by the daughter's sons and the daughter of an eight annas part of the property claimed to three persons, Bankey Lal, Radha Rawan Lal and Piare Mohan Lal for Rs. 40,000. The share of Bankey Lal is separately specified as Rs. 2.10. This person Bankey Lal was therefore a party to the litigation. ...
Aditya NaraIn Singh Bahadur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All310
Collister, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, which has been made at the instance of the Maharaja of Benares, Captain His Highness Maharaja Sir Aditya Narain Singh Bahadur, K.C.S.I. The Income-tax Officer assessed the Maharaja to tax on an income of Rs. 48,880 in respect to property in British India. The assessment year is 1934-1935. There was an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, who reduced the estimate of income to Rs. 47,174, but otherwise upheld the assessment of the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter an application was made to the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Act, requiring him to state a case for the decision of this Court upon certain questions. Three questions of law have been referred to us by the Commissioner. Of these, No. (2) reads as follows:Granting that the assesses was a non-resident, was the Income-tax Officer precluded by any revision of the Act from se...
Sir Aditya NaraIn Singh Bahadur (Maharaja of Benares) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR217(All)
COLLISTER AND BAJPAI, JJ. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central and United Provides, under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, which has been made at the instance of the Maharaja of Benares, Captain His Highness Maharaja Sir Aditya Narain Singh Bahadur, K.C.S.I.The Income Tax Officer assessed the Maharaja to tads on an income of Rs. 48,180 in respect to property in British India. The assessment year is 1934-35. There was an appeal to the assistant Commissioner, who reduced the estimate of income to Rs. 47,174 but otherwise upheld the assessment of the Income-tax Officer.Thereafter an application was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(2) of the Act, requiring him to state a case for the decision of this Court upon certain questions. Three questions of law have been referred as by the Commissioner. Of these, No. (2) reads as follows :-'Granting that the assessee was a non-resident, was the Income Tax Officer precluded by any provision of t...
Radhey Lal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All252
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction under the Gambling Act. It has been argued, in the first place, that the warrant was invalid because the boundaries of the house to be searched were not specified. Learned Counsel has referred to a ruling but the case to which he refers merely says that in that particular instance the description was vague and insufficient. The learned Judge did casually remark that it would have been better to give the boundaries or the number of the house but he was not laying down any rule of law. In the present case, the house was described by the name of the owner or occupier and there is no; reason at all for suggesting that anybody was in doubt about the house which was to be searched. Then it is said that it has not been proved that certain slips which were described by the Sub-Inspector as slips for the purpose of satta gambling were for such purpose. The evidence was accepted by the Courts below and it does not appear t...
Sheo NaraIn Gopi Ram Vs. New Sevan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. Thr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All272
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit to recover damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff 1, the New Sevan Sugar and Gur Refining Company Ltd., through their Agents, Messrs. Bird & Company, and the defendants firm styled 'Sheo Narain Gopi Ram' entered into a contract on 22nd June 1933. Under this contract, the defendants purchased 900 bags of sugar. Under the terms of the contract, the defendants agreed to take delivery of the goods purchased by them in three instalments in the months of July, August and September 1933. There was a breach and therefore the plaintiffs instituted a suit to recover damages. The defendants firm took various pleas in defence. It was denied by them that they committed a breach of the contract. The amount of damages claimed was also not admitted. There were several other pleas taken in the case; but for the purposes of this appeal, it is not necessary to enumerate them.2. The learned Judge of the trial Court came to t...
Sheo Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. Sangram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All259
Sulaiman, C.J.1. These four appeals arise out of two Suits No. 129 of 1928 and No. 6 of 1929 instituted by two groups of plaintiffs. The parties represent some members of five branches of the descendants of Raghubar Singh, who was their common ancestor. The claim related to numerous properties consisting of zamindaries, houses as well as tenancies. The case put forward by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 129 of 1928 was that they were entitled; to a one-fifth share in the properties in suit under an arbitration award dated 20th December 1916, on the basis of which a decree was passed on 5th January 1917, and they were in possession up to the time of the suit. The plaint was filed on 20th December 1928. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was 20th December 1927 when it was stated that the defendants had commenced to deny the plaintiffs' rights. Later on 20th March 1930, the plaintiffs with the permission of the Court got a new relief added which was in the following terms:If in the opin...
Mubarak HusaIn Vs. Sagar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All321
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the defendants, who have certain groves in mahal Bakar Ali and mahal Gobardhan Das in village Pachenda Kalan, have a transferable right in the trees of those groves, and on the answer to that question depends the decision of this appeal. The difficulty in answering the question is occasioned not so much by the apparent conflict in the reported decisions of this Court concerning the rights of persons who have planted groves on their occupancy or non occupancy holdings or on lands let to them with the object of planting a grove, as by the fact that the question at issue in the present appeal has on previous occasions been the subject of decisions by Courts in litigations between the zamindar and the holders of the groves in the two mahals, and the decisions have by no means been uniform. In particular there is irreconcilable conflict between a decision of the Board of Revenue and a decision of t...
B. Krishna Gopal Vs. Mt. Lakshmi Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All232
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are three connected appeals arising out of the same matter and can conveniently he disposed of together. For the purpose of disposing of these appeals, it is necessary to set forth hero briefly the facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties. One Udai Ram died leaving considerable property. One of his sons was Badha Krishna by name who was married to Mt. Lakshmi Bai. Radha Krishna had a son, Jai Narain, and Krishna Gopal is his son. Udai Ram, before his death, executed a will under which he divided his estate between Krishna Gopal and Mt. Lakshmi Bai. On the death of Ddai Ram, a dispute arose between Krishna Gopal on one side and his paternal grandmother, Mt. Lakshmi Bai, on the other. They executed an agreement under which they appointed Mr. Vikarmajit Singh, an advocate practising at Gawnpore, as an arbitrator. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that there were 25 points in issue which had to be settled and he made an award. It is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »