Allahabad Court January 1973 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.
Smt. Munni Devi and ors. Vs. Satgur Dayal Tandon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All281
T.S. Misra, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or cutting the trees or transferring or otherwise disposing of the crops of the land in suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the Hindu community of Sitapur was the owner of plot No. 134 under an old grant which contains the temple of Mahabir Ji and Thakur Ji. The plaintiffs further alleged that they ware members of the Hindu community of Sitapur and constituted a committee for the management of the said temple and fond. The defendant was acting as Pujari of the temple on behalf of the Hindu community. He, however, threatened to sell or cut down the trees and appropriate the proceeds thereof. The plaintiffs and other members of the Hindu community tried to dissuade him from doing the said acts but he refused to listen to reason, hence the suit was filed for the said reliefs. It was allied in the plaint that the suit was being instituted on behalf of the Hindu community...
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Babulal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All450
Satish Chandra, J.1. On 16-6-1948 Praduma Narain Singh. the Zamindar executed a lease in favour of the respondent Babu Lal in respect of plots Nos. 1242 and 1569 (area about 54 bighas) for the purpose of carrying on agricultural operation and quarrying stones and ballast from there. The respondent's case is that he entered into possession of the plots and continued to pay the agreed rent to the zamindar and after the abolition of zamindari, to the State. In accordance with the terms of the lease he quarried stones from the plots. It appears that after the abolition of the zamindari, the State Government passed an order directing the revenue authorities to report whether mining operations were being carried out or any stones etc. excavated from any plot in the district. The Tahsildar of Manjhanpur in the district of Allahabad where the aforesaid plots were situate, reported that these plots constituted a hillock end that the respondent Babu Lal who was recorded as Sirdar of the plots, i...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwan Das Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: [1975]99ITR534(All)
R.L. Gulati, J. 1. Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, has submitted this statement of the case at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Lucknow.2. There was a joint Hindu family at Jhansi of the name and style of Nathu Ram Jawaharlal. On May 19, 1945, there was a partition in this family as a result of which two smaller undivided families came into existence, namely, (i) Bhagwan Dass Sita Ram, the assessee, and (ii) Jawaharlal Mani Ram. The bigger Hindu undivided family preferred a claim under Section 25A of the Act for an order recognising the partition. While this claim was pending the assessee family filed voluntary returns under Section 22(1) of the Act for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1949-50 on November 18, 1950. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of partition and assessed the income of the two units in the hands of the bigger H...
Haji Ismail Noor Mohammad and Company Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC54(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This writ petition proceeds on the ground that Sub-rule (5) of Rule 25-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules is ultra vires the Rule-making power of the State Government. The Bench hearing the writ petition felt that in view of the decision of a Division Bench in Messrs. Hulas Rai Tulsi Ram Oil Mills v. State of U.P. Civil Misc. Writ No. 6295 of 1970, decided on 19th May, 1972; since reported at [1974] 33 S.T.C. 47, in which the constitutional validity of this rule was upheld, this case should more properly engage the attention of a Full Bench. That is how the matter has been laid before this Bench.2. Haji Ismail Noor Mohammad and Company, the petitioner, is a registered partnership firm. It is registered under the U.P. as well as the Central Sales Tax Acts. It carries on the business of manufacturing oils from groundnuts and oil-seeds and sells the oils manufactured by it within the State and also in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It exports the oils to Nepa...
Smt. Ram Piyari Vs. Lala Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All227
ORDERHari Swarup, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of 2nd March, 1970. Along with the revision two orders were filed. One is in respect of refusal to permit certain documents to be brought on the record. The second is an order granting adjournment on certain conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he confines the revision to the second order.2. The plaintiff had filed an application supported by an affidavit for adjournment of the case so that he may file a revision against the order refusing the application for bringing on record certain documents. The learned Civil Judge while granting the application passed the following order:--'Heard. Adjourned to 14-4-70 for F.H. on payment of Rupees Three Hundred as today's adjournment costs to be paid by 12 A.M. on that date, failing which the suit shall automatically stand dismissed for default and non-prosecution. No more adjournment. Any stay order (certified copy) be filed before that date.'3. It is pe...
Shyam Lal Vs. Shyam NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All234
T.S. Misra, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 4. It arises out of a suit for redemption of half share in the property in question on payment of Rs. 500/-. The material facts are as follows. The property in question was owned by two brothers Bhaggu and Buddhoo, on 20-6-1910 the sons of Bhaggu and Buddhoo executed a deed for Rs. 1,000/- in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad. Again, on 17-2-1916 the three sons of Bhaggu sold the property to Sukhdeo Pande and Sakatram defendant No. 1. Sukhdeo Pande is now dead and his sons are defendants Nos. 2 and 3. On 5-11-1959 Shyam Lal, the present appellant got the property in question by an exchange from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It appears that on 27-11-1959 Ashgar and Hafiz sons of Kallu, Ishaq son of Buddhoo and Abdul Karim son of Rahim Baksh sold their share of the equity of redemption in half the shop in favour of Ram Lakhan. On 6-2-1960 Ram Lakhan obtained a sale deed from Idris in respect of his share of equity of redemption. Thereafter Ram La...
Uma Shanker and anr. Vs. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All407
1. One Ram Bali held the plots in dispute as his sir and khudkasht. He died, leaving a son Lal Man and a widow Smt. Tirthraii. On his death, his son Lal Man succeeded to the iplpts, Lal Man died in 1943 leaving a widow Smt, Dharampatti and a daughter Smt. Urmila. Smt. Urmila had two sons Uma Shanker and Rama Shanker, who are the appellants before us. Smt. Dharampatti died before the date of vesting (30th June. 1952). Smt. Urmila (Lal Man's daughter) died in 1961. It appears that Smt. Tirathraii the widow of Ram Bali also died in 1967. Before her death, she had transferred a major portion of the land in dispute in favour of Vidya Dhar and her own daughters, who are the respondents.2. During consolidation proceedings, the appellants claimed to have succeeded to the holding as the daughter's son of Lal Man. This claim was contested by Smt. Tirathraji the mother of Lal Man. The claim of the appellants was repelled by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who held that Smt, Tirathraii was a...
Mulayam Singh and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973All452
Satish Chandra, J.1. Smt. Dulari Kuer, respondent No. 3, sued for the ejectment of the appellants under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act. on the ground that the appellants were asamis and that the plaintiff needed the land for personal cultivation. In defence, it was pleaded that the defendants had acquired hereditary tenancy rights, and as such they became sirdars. They were not liable to ejectment as asamis.2. The trial Court held that the defendants were in possession of the plots in dispute as trespassers from 1355 F. They were recorded as occupants in 1356 F. They continued to remain in possession ever since. Since no suit for their ejectment under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the defendants became hereditary tenants under Section 180 (2) of the Tenancy Act. As hereditary tenants, they acquired sirdari rights under the Zamindari Abolition Act. They were not asamis. On these findings the suit was dismisse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›