Allahabad Court April 1947 Judgments
Raghunath Singh and anr. Vs. Naki Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All27
Sinha, J.1. This is a pre-emptors' appeal and the question argued before me is an interesting question of some importance.2. A sale-deed was executed on 6-3-1944, in favour of Nekiram and others by one Mathuralal. On 6-3-1944, there was an exchange between the vendees, on the one side, and one Neta, on the other, under which Neta transferred three biswas in one mahal, in exchange for three biswas in three different khewats.3. The plaintiffs brought a suit for pre-emption. Among the pleas raised in defence was a plea that the exchange conferred an indefeasible title and armed the vendees with the right to resist the suit for pre-emption.4. The learned Munsif repelled the contention and decreed the suit. On appeal, the learned Second Civil Judge disagreed with the learned Munsif and held that the exchange conferred an indefeasible interest on the vendees and entitled them to defeat pre-emption.5. In second appeal before me Mr. S.R.L. Gaur has contended that the transaction was, on the fa...
Tag this Judgment!King Emperor Vs. Kashi Prasad.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR450(All)
This revision is connected with Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1946 as the facts leading to the common point for determination are identical.The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cawnpore, filed two complaints against Kashi Prasad for his prosecution under Section 52, Income-tax Act, read with Section 177, Indian Penal Code, on the 14th August, 1944. The complaints were transferred to the Court of the Additional City Magistrate on the 18th August. The accused was summoned for the 9th September. He appeared that day. The complainant did not appear. Certain necessary documents were also not filed. On the 12th October the Magistrate sent a letter to the complainant saying that the case had been adjourned thrice for want of prosecution and that the next date fixed was the 18th October. On the 18th October the Magistrate received a letter from the complainant. It reads as follows :-'I have the honour to request you kindly to send back the complaints filed in the above case becau...
Tag this Judgment!Bhondu Vs. Ch. Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All60
Sinha, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession. The facts are briefly these : On 10-10-1936, one Ghasi sold to Chaudhari Raj Singh three houses. Two of them were let out to one Narain. In 1942 Raj Singh brought a suit, Suit No. 727 of 1942, against Narain, as a tenant, and against one Bhondu, as a sub-tenant. This suit was brought for arrears of rent and for ejectment,2. Bhondu claimed a paramount title and pleaded that he was a member of a joint Hindu family with Ghasi and the sale in favour of the plaintiff conveyed to him no title, The plea of Bhondu amounted to a denial of the plaintiff's title, with the result that it was decided that he should pay some further court-fee before he was entitled to proceed with the suit. The plaintiff, instead of making good the deficiency, prayed for permission to withdraw the suit as against Bhondu under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The Court acceded to his prayer in the following term:The plaintiff is allowed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad Munna Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR393(All)
This is a reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The questions referred to this Court for our answer are the following :-'(1) Where there are grounds for an Income-tax Officer to suspect the genuineness of a credit entry occurring in the personal account of a third party in the assessees books of accounts, whether the Income-tax Officer can, under Section 23 (3) of the Income-tax Act, required the assessee to prove that the entry represents a genuine credit in favour of that party ?(2) When an assessee, being required in the circumstances mentioned in question No. (1) above to prove that a credit entry represents a genuine credit a favour of a party, gives an explanation which is false or unbelievable, whether there is anything in law to prevent the Income-tax Officer or the appellate authority from presuming or inferring that the receipt evidenced by the credit entry is a revenue receipt ?(3) Whether in the circum...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Manphool Singh Vs. Ch. Ram Bilas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1947
Reported in: AIR1948All99
Sinha, J.1. This is a preemptor's appeal, and the only question is whether a certain transaction arms the vendee with a right to resist pre-emption.2. The sale-deed in dispute was executed on 17th June 1942, for a sum of Rs. 4000. On 16th June 1942 that is, a day earlier, the vendee acquired from the vendors some property under an exchange. The land which was conveyed by the vendors, appears to be protected land, within the meaning of Section 24, of the Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (Act 14 [xiv] of 1940). It is this section which is the fruitful source of controversy in this case.3. The learned Munsif found that the necessary steps, which were required for an alienation within the meaning of this Act, were not taken. The learned Civil Judge held otherwise.4. An application for permission to alienate the property was made by the vendors, Mt. Chando and Sheoraj Singh, to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, which was allowed.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›