Allahabad Court March 1963 Judgments
Raja Himanshudhar Singh Vs. Ram Hitkari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All496
Desai, C.J.1. This appeal arising out of dismissal of the appellant's suit for possession over a land came up for hearing before our brother Jagdish Sahas and he has referred it to a larger bench on account of conflict among decisions of this Court on the question arising in it, namely, whether a suit for possession can be decreed against some of the trespassers when the others are not before the Court. The short facts of this case are as follows:2. The appellant filed a suit against six personsincluding Ayodhya under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for their ejectment from agrove alleging that he was the grove-holder of the plotin dispute, that the defendants threatened to take possession of it without any right or title, that proceedings underSection 145, Cr. P. C. that arose out of the dispute ended in their favour and that possession over the plot wasdelivered to them on 18-7-1953. There was nothing alleged about the defendants having acted jointly or in...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhoo Dayal Vs. Chandra Kali Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All350
S.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing a suit filed jointly by three landlords, for his ejectment and recovery of rent from him. The facts which are somewhat peculiar are these. The defendant-appellant Shambhoo Dayal was originally the tenant of the house in dispute of which the landlords were three brothers whose-names are immaterial. The rent was Rs. 30/- per month. They divided the house into three separate portions and sold one portion each to the three ladies who are the plaintiffs in the present suit-Smt. Chandra Kali Devi., Smt. Sona and Smt. Raj Rani. The transfer of each portion was made by a separate-sale deed. Prior to the sale the husband of the plaintiff Chandra Kali Devi was a sub-tenant of the defendant in a portion of the house and the plaintiff Smt. Sona was herself a sub-tenant in another portion of the house. After acquiring the ownership of the house, the three plaintiffs made a joint, applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Singh and anr. Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All289
ORDERK.B. Asthana, J.1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The important question which arises for consideration in this revision relates to the meaning of the word 'entertain' occurring in the proviso added by this Court to Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. The execution Court rejected the application of the judgment-debtor for setting aside of the sale on the ground that he had failed to comply with the conditions of the proviso, namely, had failed to deposit the security within the period of limitation though the application for setting aside the sale was filed within time. The Courts below relied on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in the case of Bawan Ram v. Kunj Behari Lal, 1960 All LJ 578: (AIR 1962 All 42). The learned counsel for the applicants has before me cited a decision of a Division Bench consisting of Mukherjee and Uniyal, JJ., in the case of Kundanlal v. Jagannath Sharma, 1962 All LJ 574 : AIR 1962 All 547 in which it was 'held that the case of 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Mahavir Prasad Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All378
R.S. Pathak, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of execution proceedings.2. A decree was obtained by Mahabir Prasad Jain for Rs. 1,993 and odd and this decree was put into execution by the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. The execution application was supported by an affidavit stating that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist and he was capable of paying the decretal amount but was deliberately refusing or neglecting to pay this amount in order to harass the decree-holder. Notice under Order 21, Rule 37, C. P. C. was issued to the judgment-debtor, who appeared pursuant to that notice, and opposed the application. Proceedings were, therefore, taken under Order 21, Rule 40 of the Code. The decree-holder led evidence in support of his application and thereafter the judgment-debtor produced evidence in rebuttal.3. The executing Court accepted the ease of the decree-holder; and passed an order allowing the execution application by arrest and detention of...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. Vs. Maiku Baldeo Chamar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All486; 1963CriLJ366
R.A. Misra, J.1. I propose to dispose of these three appeals together because their facts are identical and the points raised is them are the same. Criminal Appeal No. 311 OT 1962 has been filed against Maiku. Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1962 has been filed against Shakoor and Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1962 has been filed against Mangrey. The three respondents were prosecuted and tried separately before the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sitapur on a charge under Section 5 Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, The charge against Maiku respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1962 was that on 25th June, 1959 at about 2 P.M., he was found in possession of two Lachhis (weighing 30 seers) of Railway Telegraph Wire while he was going on a rickshaw in Sitapur. Against Shakoor it was alleged that he had with him three bundles of Telegraph Wire when he was arrested near Sah Maholi, police station Kotwali, district Sitapur, at about 9.20 A.M. on 12th May, 1959. Mangrey respondent in ...
Tag this Judgment!Gur Bux Singh Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964All453
Dhavan, J.1. This is a landlord's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the tenants' suit for a declaration of their title as tenants. The facts are these. There is a house in Gandhinagar, Kanpur, which was owned by Gopeshwar Nath the second defendant. He lived in a portion of it and had let out the rest to several tenants, including the two plaintiffs in the suit. In April 1950 he sold the house to Gur Bux Singh, the first defendant. It is common ground that under the law the two plaintiffs became the tenants of Gur Bux Singh. But the position was complicated by the fact that simultaneously with the transaction of sale a lease was executed by the new owner in favour of the old owner purporting to make him the tenant-in-chief of the entire house with the right to collect the rent from the two plaintiffs as his subtenants.Subsequently, the new owner obtained a decree for the ejectment of the tenant-in-chief (the old owner) and sought to execute it aga...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Babu Ram Vs. Smt. Kishen Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1963All509
Jagdish Sahai, J. 1. This is a defendant's first appeal. The plaintiff-respon-dent Srimati Kishan Dei is the widow of one Lala Madan Gopal who was admittedly the last mate owner of the properties in dispute. The defendant-appellant Lala Babu Ram alias Brij Kishore is the son of Srimati Sohini Devi, daughter of Lala Narain Dass, who was the paternal uncle itatners brother) of Lala Madan Gopal aforesaid. The plaint allegations are as follows :-- Lala Ram Dass, the father of the defendant-appellant Lala Babu Ram had considerable influence upon Lala Madan Gopal with the result that the latter declared the aeren-dant-appellant to be his adopted son on the 21st of May, 1940 and changed his name from Babu Ram to Brij Kishore. Lala Madan Gopal died on the 8th of October, 1942, and the plaintiff as also the defendant entered into possession or the property in dispute. The property was managed By the defendant-appellant. With the lapse of time the defendant-appellant became indifferent to the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Nestles' Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC606(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. This and connected references arise out of three statements of cases submitted by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U.P., to this Court; the questions of law that arise from them are as follows:-1. Whether powdered milk and condensed milk are milk within the meaning of Section 4 and therefore exempt from tax or milk products sold in sealed containers within the meaning of the notification and therefore taxable ?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the applicants are dealers within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sale took place within the State of Uttar Pradesh ?2. The facts as they are stated in the statements are these. The assessee is a dealer in condensed milk and powdered milk sold in sealed containers with its office in Calcutta. It has no office in Uttar Pradesh. It enters into contracts of sale of condensed milk and powdered milk with customers residing in Uttar ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanpur Development Board Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC493(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, U. P., has, at the instance of an assessee, referred to this Court this statement of the case inviting its opinion on the following questions:Whether on the admitted facts of this case, the Kanpur Development Board can be said to be a 'dealer' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, and whether it can be assessed to payment of sales tax on the value of the materials supplied by it to its contractors ?2. The assessee, the Kanpur Development Board, was constituted for certain specific purposes such as provision of water supply and public drains, development and maintenance of streets, regulation of traffic, town planning, organization of transport, river trading, adequate housing, location of markets and provisions of sites for hawkers and pedlers. It had to make constructions to carry out these objects and it entrusted the work to contractors. In order to avoid delay and also to secure the use of satisfactory ma...
Tag this Judgment!Mota Singh Dalip Singh Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC620(All)
M.C. Desai, C.J.1. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U. P., has referred to this Court the statement of a case from which the following two questions arise :(1) Whether the assessment of the applicant for the year 1949-50 can be said to be barred by limitation on the ground that the notice of demand was issued to the applicant after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year ?(2) Whether the assessment of the applicant on a turnover of Rs. 2,00,000 could be made on the materials on the record?2. The statement has been referred at the instance of the assessee and the question is of assessment for the year 1949-50. The assessee was to be assessed on the turnover of 1949-50. It did not submit any return and the turnover escaped assessment. Then the Sales Tax Officer started proceedings under Section 21 and gave a notice to it and estimated its turnover for 1949-50 at Rs. 6,00,000 according to the best of his judgment. The assessment order was passed on this turnover on 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »