Allahabad Court October 1946 Judgments
Satdeo Koeri Vs. Suraj Bali Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1948All16
Allsop, J.1. Suraj Bali Singh, respondent, had a simple money decree against Satdeo Koeri, appellant, and Jadupat, respondent. He made an application for the execution of the decree by sale of a grove. The civil Court sold the grove, confirmed the sale and issued a certificate. Thereafter Satdeo Koeri made an application that the sale should be set aside upon the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree by sale of this grove which was agricultural land. His contention was that the decree should have been transferred to the Collector for execution by the sale of this grove under the provisions of Section 68, Civil P.C. and of the relevant notification made by the Government. The learned Munsif upheld his contention and set aside the sale. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court on appeal by Suraj Bali Singh held that the grove was not property to which the provisions of Section 68, Civil P.C. applied. His attention does not seem to have been drawn to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, in Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1946
Reported in: [1947]15ITR61(All)
ORDER OF REFERENCEPHATAK, J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated December 2, 1943. The question referred for decision by this Court are as follows :-(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner, dated 29th March, 1940, rejcting the revision petitions of the assessee under Section 33 of the Act, is 'otherwise prejudicial to him' (the assessee) within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Act.(2) Whether the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33, without notice to the assessee and without giving him an opportunity to be heard, is an order without jurisdiction; and whether the validity of the said order is a question of law arising out of that order itself within the meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 66 of the Act (3) Whether there was evidence before the Income-tax Officer from which it ...
Tag this Judgment!Jawahir and ors. Vs. Jadu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1949All120
ORDERHarish Chandra, J.1. This application arises out of an application under Section 12, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the point raised is that although the applicants who are opposite parties in the Court below have raised the question that they are tenants of the land in suit, the learned Munsif has refused to refer the issue arising out of that plea for decision to a revenue Court as required by Section 288. U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Section 288 requires that in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a civil Court in which any question regarding tenant right arises and such question has not previously been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the civil Court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and submit the record to the appropriate revenue Court for the decision of that issue. In the Explanation, however, it is said that a plea of tenancy which is clearly untenable and intended only to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court shall not be de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›