Allahabad Court September 1950 Judgments
Rustam Singh and ors. Vs. Gopal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All437
Agarwala, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against an order of the lower appellate Court returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. The plaintiffs sued for the ejectment of the defendant from a plot of land which the plaintiffs claimed was their sir land. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had taken unlawful possession over the plot in the month of July, 1944 sometime before the institution of the suit and that he was a trespasser and liable to be ejected. They also claimed certain damages.3. The defence was that the defendant was a co-sharer himself and was in possession over the plot and that he was in adverse proprietary possession for over 12 years. He further alleged that the suit was barred by Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act.4. The trial Court held that the suit was not barred by Section 180 (2), Tenancy Act, hereditary rights could not accrue in favour of the defendant in respect of the sir land and decreed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court he...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Board Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and Berar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-26-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All582; [1951]19ITR63(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, and the two questions that have been referred to us are as follows :'(1) Whether on the facts of the ease the arrangement for supply of water to Agra Cantonment constituted any trade or business on the part of the Agra Municipality ?(2) Whether the Agra Cantonment was not within the jurisdictional area of the Agra Municipality ?'2. The Cantonment area of Agra is surrounded on all sides by land within the municipal limits of Agra. From 1894 the Municipal Board used to provide water for the Cantonment including the Fort. This continued upto 1906 and in that year the Cantonment Board became a share-holder in the Municipal Water Supply Works by paying a lump sum amount representing the Cantonment Board's share on the capital costs. After 1906 water was supplied from the Water Works Agra both to the Cantonment area as well as to the Municipal area. In the year 1932, however, there was a fresh agreement the terms of whic...
Tag this Judgment!M.X. De Nornha and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All137; [1950]18ITR928(All)
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act. Two questions, which have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, are as follows:'1. Whether, in the circumstances at the case, there was a valid service by post on the appellant as contemplated by Section 63, Income-tax Act? 2. Whether Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1917,was ultra vires in the absence of a corresponding rule entitling it to re-hear the appeal when good cause was shown for default ?' 2. The assesaee is a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs, M. X. de Nornha & Sons, Kanpur. The asaessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. A notice was issued by the Tribunal on 19-5-1947, fixing 17-7-1947, for hearing of the appeal. The notice was sent by registered post to the address given by the assessee. The notice was taken to the office of the assessee on 23-5-1947, and it was received by one H. D. Srivasta...
Tag this Judgment!Gaya Ram Gabbu Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All325; [1951]19ITR114(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income tax Act, relating to the assessment for three years, viz., 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. The three questions referred to us are as follows:'1. Whether in the circumstances of the case, the issue of a notice under Section 84 for the assessment year 1940-41 was valid in law?2. Whether in the circumstances of the case the action taken under Section 84 was based on discovery of any definite information within the terms of Section 34 of the Act.?3. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the IV Additional Income-tax Officer, E. P. T. Circle, Kanpur, had authority to make assessment without issuing fresh notices under Sections 22 (4) and 23 (2) of the Act?' 2. The first two questions refer to the assessment year 1940 41 only. The assessment in that year was made by Mr. H. L. Giddens, Income-tax Officer, Gorakhpur, on 12 8-1940.3. In the assessment year 1839-40, the assesses had made a number of entries of fictitious deposits...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lakhan Lal Vs. Jagdambika Pratap NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All353
Agarwala, J. 1. This is a co-debtor's appeal arising out of a suit tinder the Encumbered Estates Act proceedings. 2. Rudra Pratap Singh, respondent 2, made an application under Section 4, E. E. Act, on 18-4-1936. On the same date, the Collector transferred this application to the Special Judge under Section 6 of the Act. On 27-11-1936, the Court of Wards on behalf of Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh, respondent 1, preferred a claim for arrears of rent due to him as a superior proprietor against the applicant Rudra Pratap Singh who was an under-proprietor. Arrears claimed were of two villages, Jolahapur and Hariharpur Balia for the years 1338 to 1341F. The application of Rudra Pratap Singh was dismissed on the ground that he had not impleaded his sons and grandsons in his application. But it was later on restored. When it was restored, respondent l put in an-other claim claiming the sum due to him as had already been shown in the previous claim. Subsequently respondent 1 gave up his ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ramkali and ors. Vs. Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All655
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appln. in revn. Under Section 115, Civil P. C. directed against an appellate order confirming the order of the Asst. Colr. of the first class passed in proceedings started by an appln. Under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The appln. has been allowed by both the Cts. below. To avoid confusion, the appcts. Under Section 12 of the Act would hereafter be refd. to as 'the pltfs.' & the opposite parties to that appln. would be refd. to as 'the defts.' 2. It appears that the pltfs. filed an appln. Under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of an old mtge. executed in Jeth of 1285 F. (corresponding to June 1878). The property mortgaged consisted of four plots of land, viz. plots Nos. 1061, 809, 426 & 1334, with a total area of five bighas & thirteen biswas, in village Tindwari. The pltfs. claimed to be the representatives of the original mtgors. of the property in suit. The original mtgors. were two persons, viz. Binda Chhangua, sons...
Tag this Judgment!Gokal and ors. Vs. Zarif HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All148
1. This is a vendees' appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The trial Court dismissed it. The lower appellate Court decreed it.2. The only point for consideration is whether the property is pre-emptible. The property sold was described in the sale deed as follows:'All my rights and interests in 7 sibams out of 48 sihama out of. 50 acre in khata khewat No. 24 village Lodhi Sarai in the town of Sambhal together with the trees of all kinds within the limits of the Municipality.'3. The Agra Pre-emption Act does not apply to this case because by Sub-section (8) of Section 1 of the said Act the areas included within the limits of the Municipality have been excluded from its purview. The suit was based on custom. In the wajib-ul-arz the provision about custom is as follows:'After a co-sharer sells, mortgages or remortgages his haqiyat then he must inform first his nearest co-sharer and upon his refusal other co-sharers If such co sharer does not take the property on payment of reasonable ...
Tag this Judgment!Mewa Ram Vs. Phul Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1950
Reported in: AIR1951All431
Malik, C.J.1. This appeal is on behalf of a judgment-debtor whose contention was that the application for execution of the decree filed on 23-2-1943, was barred by time. The decree was passed on 20-5-1939, and it was admitted that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist who was entitled to get the benefit of the Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act (Act X [10] of 1987). It was, however, urged that Mewa Ram, appellant, having purchased the property in execution of a simple money decree subject to the mortgage on the basis of which the decree in execution was obtained, he came under the exception in Section 6, Clause (c), Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act (Act X [10] 1937) and the decree being therefore executable against Mewa Bam, the period during: which the Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act remained in force could not be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an application for execution of the decree.2. The relevant portion...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sharan Shukla and anr. Vs. Bali Bhadar Shukla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All140
P.L. Bhargaya, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal. It arises out of a suit, under Section 33, United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act, for determination of the amount due under a usufructuary mortgage, dated 28.5.1902 and three subsequent mortgages, two of them executed on 12.2.1914, and one on 16.1.1919. The trial Court (Munsif of Basti) made 'a preliminary decree directing accounts to be taken' and appointed a commissioner for the purpose. The commissioner filed his report. Certain objections thereto were filed by the parties and, in view of those objections, the commissioner was asked to review the calculations made by him. Then, the commissioner filed a revised report and in accordance with that report the Court declared that a sum of Rs. 1,336 and odd was due on the four mortgages. The defendants-mortgagees preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Basti challenging the mode of calculation of profits adopted by the commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Zamiar Ahmed Vs. S. Haidar Nazar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1950
Reported in: AIR1952All541
Agarwala, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The facts briefly stated are : There is a grove No. 1247 in Mahal Maufi Thok Mohammad Naqi in the townof Amroha. The parties are co-sharers in the Mahal. Defendants 2 to 6, namely, Syed Hasan, Munsif Hasan, Mt. Manzoor Fatma, Absan Hasan Khan and Mt. Fatma Sughra, sold their shares in the grove to Zamir Abmad by means of a sale deed, dated 29-6-1942, for a consideration of Rs. 200. Haidar Nazar filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that he had, according to the custom of pre-emption prevailing with regard to the property in dispute a preferential right and was entitled to pre-empt the property sold. He claimed the preferential right on the ground that he was a relation of the vendors in addition to his being a co-sharer, while Zamir Ahmad, the vendee, was merely a co-sharer. The defence inter alia was that there was a custom of pre-emption in Amroha, that, at any rate, if there was a custom it was i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »