Allahabad Court October 1950 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.
Sansarman Vs. Mt. Ram Dulari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All459
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This second appeal hasbeen referred to a Bench by Sankar Sarah J., asin his opinion there was a conflict of authoritybetween the Allahabad High Court and the lateChief Courth of Avadh.2. The facts leading to the reference are these:Two persons Nandkishore and Bhagwat Prasadmade a posessory mortgage on 16th August 1912in favour of Shri Krishen in respect of 11 plotsmeasuring 2.54 acres for 15 years. Nandkishoredied and Bagwat prasad made a simple mortgage of five plots on 30.7.1924 in favour of Sansarman,the son of the original mortgagee, ShriKrishen for Rs.600 giving credit for the considerationof the previous mortgage. Bhagwat Prasadalso died and his window Ram Dulari sold thequity of redemption in a portion of the mortgagedplots to Dabhal and Mohan includingcertain other property for Rs. 750. (Ex. 2).Rupees 636 were made dehanid Sansarman filed asuit in 1937 on the basis of mortage of 1924impleading Ram Dulari and her tranferees underB-1. A permilinary decree ofor ...
Kali Prasad and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All630
Agarwala, J.1. The appcts. were convicted by the Addl. Ses. J., Bahraich, under Section 304(2) read with Section 149 & Section 147, Penal Code & sentenced to 5 years' R. I. & one year's R. I. respectively. Their appeal to this Ct. was dismissed by one of us & their conviction & sentences were upheld. They now pray that the case may be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The facts briefly are as follows :2. The occurrence giving rise to the prosecution of the applicants took place on 13-8-1949 at about 12 A. M. in village Kani-bojhi, police station Malhipur, district Bahraich. Sardar Karam Singh, Taluqdar of the Jamunaha Estate, is the proprietor of village Kani-bojhi & held 35 bighas of Sir in this village. The Deputy Commissioner of Bahraich issued notices to various zamindars, including Sardar Karan Singh, to let out their parti lands to tenants within a fixed period & intimated that, if this was not done, panchas would ...
Sukhnandan Vs. Suraj Bali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All119
Kidwai, J.1. The facts of this case are set out in the referring order and need not be repeated. The question for consideration is what is the true meaning to be assigned to the relevant provisions of Section 13, Oudh Laws Act, which reads as follows :'Any person entitled to a right of pre-emption may bring a suit to enforce such right on any of the following grounds (namely) :(a) that no due notice was given as required by Section 10 ;(b) that tender was made under Section 11 or Section 12 and refused ;(c) in the case of a sale, that the price stated in the notice was not fixed in good faith ;(d) in the case of a mortgage, that the amount claimed by the mortgagee was not really due on the footing of the mortgage and was not claimed in good faith, and that it exceeds the fair market-value of the property mortgaged, or the portion of the property mortgaged in respect of which he possesses the right of pre-emption, as the case may be.If, in the case of a sale, the Court finds that the pr...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. Sobhaman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All485
Agarwala, J.1. Two questions have been referred to this Full Bench:(1) Does the alteration made by Section 32, U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act (X [10] of 1947) in the period of limitation for a suit under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, govern suits instituted before the enactment came into force ?(2) Can the new rule of limitation be applied for deciding cases which have reached the stage of appeal ?2. The facts which gave rise to the reference have been stated in the referring order of Misra J. Briefly they are as follows. A suit was filed under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, on 2-1-1943 for possession over six plots in village Khainchulwa, Pargana Amsin, district Faiza-bad, and for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 48. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Sobhaman, an under-proprietor. His case was that he was dispossessed from the plots by the defendant-appellant Raghuraj Singh in the year 1942. The defendant-appellant Raghuraj Singh is one of the cosharers in the relative superio...
Bhoop Singh Vs. Tarif Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All392
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is a son of one Mohkam Singh and not of Ganga Sahai. His case was that he was Mohkam's son by his legally wedded wife, Mt. Kallo, who had previously been the wife of the said Ganga Sahai. Mt. Kallo having thus been the wife of each of these two persons at different times and the plaintiff's case being that he is a son of Mohkam Singh and not of Ganga Sahai, the relief prayed for by him really meant that he wanted a declaration that he was a legitimate son of Mohkam Singh by that lady.2. The plaintiff set out a pedigree in the plaint, according to which one Hira Singh had four sons, Nagar Singh, Mohkam Singh, Bhole Singh and Ram Sahai. Nagar Singh admittedly left a son Tarif Singh, the defendant respondent in this case.3. Mohkam Singh had left India a long time ago for the Mauritius Island, returning home after about 30 years. During his absence hia property had been taken possession of by Naga...
Mt. Khatoon and anr. Vs. Sripal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All650
Agarwala, J.1. This is defts'. appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a perpetual lease was invalid & for possession over the property covered by the lease.2. The facts briefly are as follows: The plff. is a brother of defts-respondent Sripal Singh, Chandrapal Singh & Rampal Singh. His claim was that his brothers Sripal Singh & Chandrapal Singh had executed a perpetual lease of five agricultural plots Nos. 1776, 1777, 1872/1, 1873/1 & 2123, which were included within the under-proprietary holding of the family of the plff. & his brothers & that this perpetual lease executed on 24-7-1931 in favour of Mt. Bibi, wile of Hazrat deft. 4, & on the death of Mt. Bibi inherited by Hazrat, who gifted it to defts-appellants, was wholly void on two grounds, firstly, that the property was ancestral & the family, was a joint Hindu family & the transfer was without any legal necessity &, secondly, that if the family was not a joint family but that the parties were co-owners as tenants in...
Baur and ors. Vs. Deo Kali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All610
Agarwala, J.1. This is the defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and damages. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff Raja Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents 1 to 3, under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act.2. The plots in suit, 23 in number were alleged to belong to the plaintiff as an under-proprietor and the defendants were alleged to have taken possession of the same without the plaintiff's consent and without any right. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 200 as damages. Defendant 1 contested the suit upon the ground that he was a tenant of the plots having obtained a lease from the superior proprietor Raj Kurnari Kaniz Baqar and that the plaintiff was not an under-proprietor at all. The issue about the proprietary right raised by the defendant was referred to the Civil Court. The Civil Court decided that the plaintiff was an under-proprietor. On receipt of this finding the trial Court decreed the suit but awarded no damages. The defendants appealed to the...
Udayram Jagannath Vs. Re.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1950
Reported in: [1951]19ITR222(All)
This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessee is a registered firm and the assessment year is 1946-47, the relevant accounting period being from October, 1944, to October, 1945. In the books of the assessee there were three cash credits of Rs. 7,000, 8,100 and 15,000 which the assessee claimed were loans from various persons but the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that they did not represent genuine items of loan and were suppressed profits. We are not concerned with two of these items as the Tribunal and other Income-tax authorities decided that those items were not revenue receipts. The only items now under consideration is the sum of Rs. 15,000 which, the assessee claims, was borrowed by him on three different dates from Messrs. Narsingh Das Ramgopal. A sum of Rs. 4,000, according to the assessee, was borrowed on September 16, 1945, a further sum of Rs. 8,000 on September 18, 1945, and the last item of Rs. 3,000 was borrowed on the Septe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maheshwari Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All119; [1951]19ITR83(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. These are two references made under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, & though the questions have been differently framed in them, the point raised is the same. The aaseesees had lent money to certain persona who applied under Section 4, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act. In due course decrees were passed under Section 14 of the Act. These decrees carried interest at a rate mentioned in the decrees. Bonda were issued by the Collector under Section 30, U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, to the creditors in satisfaction of the decrees in their favour. These bonds included not only the principal amount due under the decrees but also the accumulated interest between the date of the decree & the date on which the bonds were issued; so that the total amount of the principal & interest due under a decree was the amount for which the bounds were issued & they carried interest at 84 per cent. per annum.2. In both the oases the Income-tax Officer, after deducting certain expenses incurred by ...
Basdeo Vs. Badri Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All186
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad. The facts which have given rise to the reference are these: On 21-6-1948, Badri Narain presented an application to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Handia, in the district of Allahabad, for initiation of proceedings, under Section 145, Criminal P.C. It was alleged in the application that there was a dispute relating to certain fields; and there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace. On this application the Magistrate passed the following order, on the same date : 'S. O. Sarai Mamrez ; Please enquire and report. If there is an apprehension of breach of peace, the property in dispute may be attached and compliance report should be sent to this Court before 10-7-18.'The police submitted a report in due course, pointing out that there was an apprehension of breach of the peace. The report further stated that the property in dispute had been attached. On receipt of the police report the M...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »