Allahabad Court January 1952 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.
Mauji Lal Vs. Jagnandan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All78
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. Srimati Kishan Dei, succeeding to the property in suit as a limited owner either in the capacity of a widow of Ram Swarup or as a mother of Parshottam, her son, remarried Har Narain and later she and Jai Karan executed a deed which ostensibly is a combination of a deed of surrender by her in favour of Jai Karan and a deed of gift by both Jai Karan and herself to Mauji Ram, son of Har Narain, her second husband. Jagbandhan sued Kishan Dei, defendant 1, Mauji Ram, defendant 2, Mahesh Earn, son of Jai Karan, defendant 3, and Hanuman Prasad, brother of the plaintiff, defendant 4, for an injunction against defendants 1 to 3 preventing them from interfering with his possession of the property in suit, it being alleged that he was in possession as a survivor of the joint family which originally consisted of Beni Prasad and Ram Lal, brothers, who reunited after there had been a partition between them and their other four brothers. The allegation of Ram Lal and Beni Prasad ...
Jodhey and ors. Vs. State Through Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All788
ORDERNasir Ullah Beg, J.1. This is an application on behalf of 20 accused under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 561A, Criminal P. C. The accused applicants were convicted by the Gaon Panchayati Adalat of Khajuria Awasi district Sitapur, under Section 160, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 each. The applicants filed a revision against their conviction before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitapur, who dismissed the revision on 17-4-1951. They filed another application for revision before the Sessions Judge of Sitapur who dismissed their revision on 16-6-1951, on the ground that no revision application against the order of the Panchayati Adalat was maintainable in the said Court under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (XXVI of 1947). The applicants have filed the present application in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 561A, Criminal P. C. praying that the entire proceedings before the Panchayat including the order of...
Radhey Mohan Vs. Har NaraIn Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All504
Malik, C.J.1. In this appeal under Section 12(2), Oudh Courts Acts, a nice point of law is raised. The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant. The plaintiff was demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 27 per month. The defendant honestly believed that the amount payable by him was Rs. 22-8-0 per month. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff for payment at the rate of Rs. 27 per month the defendant stoutly refused to pay at that rate and insisted on paying the amount at Rs. 22-8-0 per month only. The plaintiff refused to accept rent at Rs. 22-8-0 per month with the result that the defendant started sending money orders to the plaintiff which he refused. The question was whether in the circumstances it could be said that the tenant had wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand by the landlord. It is not denied that notices of demand were sent to the defendant. It is also no...
Mt. Munno Bibi Vs. Commr. of Income Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All514; [1952]22ITR101(All)
Malik, C.J.1. The question referred to usunder Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, is as follows:'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the cash amount of Rs. 13000 received as part of the liquidation of the mortgage debt which included a sum of Rs. 34994 on account of interest could in the absence of any circumstances prior to the filling of the return indicating to which item of the mortgage dues principal, interest or costs, the amount was to be applied could be presumed in law to be the receipt of interest and assess-ed as such.'2. The facts are that a sum of Rs. 49320 had been advanced by the assessee on foot of a mortgage bond. The debtor applied under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act and a decree under Section 14 of the said Act was passed for Rs. 85828 which included the principal sum of Rs. 49320 lent and interest thereon Rs. 34994 and costs Rs. 1582. That decree was sent to the Collector for liquidation of the debt. The Collector paid a sum of as 13000 only in cash and for th...
Sri Ram Vs. Lekhraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All814
Bind Basni Prasad, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. The relevant facts are that one Inder-man was the owner of a house He died leaving a widow. On 18th September 1934, Lekhraj, the judgment-debtor-respondent, obtained a sale deed in 'respect of this house from the widow. Sri Ram, the decree-holder-appellant, alleging himself to be a reversioner brought a suit for the possession of the house and for mesne profits. This suit was decreed and the decision was upheld, with a slight modification, in appeal. Sri Ram applied for the execution of the decree on 20th July, 1946. Lekhraj filed a second appeal in this Court and obtained an order for the stay of the execution proceedings. The second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 14th February 1947. The stay order was then discharged. On the 2nd April 1947, Lekhraj, respondent, made an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P. C. alleging that the parties had come to a compromise by means of a w...
Ram Niranjan Lal and ors. Vs. Additional District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All822
Sapru, J. 1. There are three applicants in this writ application, namely, Lala Ramniranjan Lal, Lala Mata Din and Lala Harinath. They pray for a writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate of Kanpur, allotting a certain land to Sardar Kartar Singh, opposite-party No. 2 and further prohibiting the learned Additional District Magistrate from allotting the said land to any other person.2. The facts which have given rise to this application may be stated shortly. A piece of land nearly 40 acres was acquired by the father of the present applicants, Lala Munna Lal, from the Government of India by a sale-deed dated 9th July 1946. It would appear that the land was, as a matter of fact, purchased in 1943, but the sale-deed was not executed until 9th July 1946. The applicants' contention in the application and the affidavit which they have filed before this Court is that from that date right up to the date on which they were order...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. Babu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All875
Malik, C.J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of a share of the property left by one Bhoop Singh who died in the year 1882. Bhoop Singh had a son Megh Singh and also left a widow Srimati Janki Kunwar. Mutation was effected in the village papers half and half in the names of Janki Kunwar and Megh Singh. Megh Singh died in 1901 and his eight-annas share in the property was mutated in favour of his widow, Srimati Lal Kunwar, and his son, Rustam, half and half. On Rustam's death in 1903 Lal Kunwar's name was recorded on that four-annas sharealso, with the result that Janki Kunwar's name remained recorded over eight-annas share and Lal Kunwar's name over the remaining eight-annas.In 1910 Janki Kunwar died leaving a daughter and a daughter's son, who are defendants to this suit. They claimed mutation over the eight-annas share which had been entered in the name of Janki Kunwar, and Lal Kunwar objected and claimed that the entire property had come to her by inheritance. La...
Hari Kailash and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., C.P. and Be ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953All170; [1952]22ITR195(All)
Malik, C.J. 1. The assessee-firm entered into an agreement with Messrs. E. Sefton and Company, Ltd., which company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with Its Head Office at Mirzapur. The assessee-firm agreed to finance the business of Messrs. E. Sefton & Company, Ltd., for purchasing raw wool and other manufacturing expenses etc. at a rate of interest mentioned in the agreement, dated 9th April 1940. The agreement further provided that this contract was to remain in force for a period of five years, that the assessee-firm and Messrs. E. Sefton and Company, Ltd., were to put up a Weaving and Finishing Plant to make blankets and blanketting at Mirzapur or at any other place which may be mutually agreed upon, that the two parties would work with the object of executing Government and private contracts for the supply of blankets, blanketting and yarn or for any other woollen products which, in the opinion of both the parties, could be profitably handled and that, during the p...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. State Through Chhote
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All843
ORDERP.L. Bhargava, J. 1. Ram Prasad, Sudama, Sada Shiv and Sukhdeo were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 323, Penal Code. They were tried by a Panchayati Adalat of Bagehta, Tehsil Baberoo, in the district of Banda. The Adalat found them guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them. They filed a revision in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baberoo; but the revision was rejected. Now, this application has been filed for the quashing of the conviction and sentence in exercise of this Court's power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the Panchayati Adalat was not constituted according to law inasmuch as the Sarpanch had not formed a bench of five panches from the panel as required by Section 49, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (No. 26 of 1947) and the case was heard and decided by only three panches. This aspect of the matter was not considered b...
New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1952All812; [1952]21ITR567(All)
Malik, C.J.1. In this reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act the following question has been referred to us :'Whether on the facts stated there was any evidence to prove that the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,39,561 on account of purchase of coal was incurred before 31-10-1943 and that the liability of the assessee to pay the same was ascertained or ascertainable before that date?'The relevant account year with which we are concerned is 1-11-1943 to 31-10-1944. It was admitted before the Appellate Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer that this amount of Rs. 1,39,561 was the price of coal which had been supplied to the assessee in the months of June, July and August, 1943, and it had been consumed in the account year before 1-11-1943. The assessee, however, claimed under Section 10 (2) (xv) a deduction of this amount as expenditure for the relevant year on the ground that there was an agreement with the pool association that the price of the coal su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »