Allahabad Court February 1974 Judgments
Charan Singh Attar Singh Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer Sikandrabad an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All282
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 12th July, 1973, allowing amendments in the election petition filed against the petitioner.2. Charan Singh petitioner and Gandharwa Sain, respondent No. 2, contested election for the office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. The petitioner was declared elected on 2nd June, 1972. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 12-C of the U. P. Pancbayat Raj Act questioning the petitioner's election on a number of grounds. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikandrabad, before whom the election petition was pending trial, permitted inspection of ballot papers by respondent No. 2. After inspection, respondent N6. 2 made an application for amendment of the election petition. By the proposed amendment he sought to challenge the validity of counting of ballot papers on the ground that a number of ballot papers which should have been cancelled had been wrongly counted in petitioner's favour which materia...
Tag this Judgment!Khalil Ahmad and ors. Vs. Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All422
1. This petition has been filed against the order of the trial court impleading respondents Nos. 10 and 11 as defendants in the suit and the order passed in revision filed by the petitioners against that order. The parties were impleaded by the trial court under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the revisional Court held that the trial court had committed no error of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment. 2. The suit was one for redemption of mortgage. One of the mortgagees had died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs had not been impleaded by the plaintiff who was seeking redemption. The heirs of the mortgagee were admittedly necessary parties in the suit for decision of the controversy. An application had been moved by the plaintiff beyond time for impleading the heirs under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. but that application was dismissed as time barred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the application under Order 22, Rule 4 is d...
Tag this Judgment!Ram NaraIn Choubey Vs. Gangadhar Choubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All248
M.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This is the defendant's second appeal. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. The brief facts are these: The plaintiff prayed for the removal of two disputed walls marked by letters AB end CD and the 'chappar' marked by letters ABCD in the sketch map given at the foot of the plaint. The house of the plaintiff is in the south of the house of the defendant and a 'gali' intervenes between these two houses. Both these houses have their main doors towards the east and they are situated in village abadi. According to the plaintiff, the disputed land ABCD was used as passage for a fairly long time. It is further alleged in the plaint that the nabdan which emanates from the northern wall of the plaintiff's house passed through the disputed land and water used to flow through the land in dispute. The plaintiff claims to have prescribed for a right of easements of passage and of flowing water through the land ABCD. The defendants are said to have raised wa...
Tag this Judgment!Phool Wati and ors. Vs. Gur Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All262
D.S. Mathur, C.J. 1. On account of the difference of opinion between G. C. Mathur and H. N. Seth, JJ., the papers were laid before the Chief Justice for referring the matter either to a third Judge or to a Bench of three Judges. As there existed no conflict in the decisions of the Court it was not considered necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench. It has been heard by me and after I have given my opinion, the revision shall go back to the Bench for expression of final opinion on the question of law involved.2. The present revision arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Meerut in a revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The question for consideration is whether the present revision is maintainable. In many other revisions the order passed by the District Judge in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction had been challenged. The Division Bench decided to express an opinion on the maintainability of the revisions and to leave the question of admission of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Swarup JaIn Vs. Sri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All424
Amitav Banerji, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant. Plaintiff filed the suit for the ejectment of the defendant, for recovery of Rs. 2765 as arrears of rent and for future and pendente lite mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. The suit was decreed by the trial court holding that the defendant had committed a default in the payment of rent and the notice of ejectment was valid. The lower appellate court in appeal decided the only question that was raised before it, namely, that the notice dated the 30th May, 1963 was a valid notice. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved the defendant appellant has come up in appeal in this Court. 2. The only point urged in this case was that the notice dated the 30th May, 1963 did not validly terminate the tenancy and it subsisted. There is no dispute now that the lease was for a manufacturing purpose. Normally a notice for a period of six months is necessary to terminate the tenancy. But if there is, a contract to the contrary it will be ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishkumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All426
N.D. Ojha, J. 1. Appellant Jagdish Kumar Agrawal is the owner of house No. 579 in mohalla Sahukara in the city of Bareilly. A portion of this house was vacated by the tenants and the appellant made an application for its release on the around that he required it for his personal need. The accommodation was released in his favour. Subsequently, an application was made by Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 2, for allotment of the aforesaid portion in his favour on the ground that the portion had been let out to him by the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20 and that he was in occupation of the accommodation since February, 1970. Notice of this application was issued to the appellant. He filed an objection on the ground that the accommodation was still needed by him. In fact, his mother was living in it. The respondent was the son of one of his friends who requested the appellant to permit the respondent to occupy the accommodation in order to enable him to study and appear in his examination....
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Saxena Vs. Raja Babu Saxena
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All428
Amitav Banerji, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant. Plaintiff's suit for the ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of mesne profits was decreed by both the courts. The only question raised in this appeal is one of waiver of notice to quit. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the plaintiff by accepting rent for a period after the determination of tenancy had impliedly waived the notice to quit. The notice to determine the tenancy was served on the 1st February, 1967. The tenancy was to stand determined from the 1st March, 1967. The defendant had sent a money order in the sum of Rs. 5.50 to the plaintiff on the 15th February, 1967 which was accepted by the defendant. It was urged that this sum represented the rent for the month of March, 1967. It may also be relevant to mention that the suit was filed on the basis of permission granted by the Commissioner and the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 10th of March, 1967. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for t...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sarraf Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR90(All)
Satish Chandra, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the assessee from the firms, M/s. Krishna Lal Rishikesh and M/s. Parmanand Stores, which had been taxed in the hands of his father and mother, respectively, who were partners in these firms under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be included in the other income of the assessee for rate purposes ?' 2. The question relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Arun Kumar, the assessee, was a minor. He was admitted to the benefits of partnership in the following three firms : 1. M/s. Krishna Lal Rishikesh. 2. M/s. Parrnanand Stores. 3. M/s. Sarraf Brothers. In the firm, M/s. Krishna Lal Rishikesh, the assessee's father, Sri Rishikesh, was a partner. In the firm, M/s. Parmanand Stores, the assessee's mother was a partner. The assessee's share of profit in the first firm was included...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Smt. Uma Devi Shukla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975All254
ORDERJagmohan Lal, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of the defendant-appellant from a plot of land which had been let out to him by the previous owner. That owner sold e portion of that land to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the rest of it to the pro forma defendant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. After that all the three respondents became the landlords. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the defendant-appellant by a lawyer on behalf of all these three persons terminating the tenancy of the defendant andrequiring him to vacate the land on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice. The defendant-appellant did not comply with that notice. So the plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant in which the other two landlords were impleaded as pro forma respondents. The plaintiff claimed a decree for ejectment against the defendant-appellant in favour of herself and the pro forma respondents in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Tajammul HusaIn Vs. Mir Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1974All234
K.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the correctness of the Division Bench decision in Habib Seth v. Kashi Nath, (1968) All LJ 446 because of the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Raja Gyan Nath, (1969) 3 SCC 79 = (AIR 1969 NSC 185) and Sachalmal Parasram v. Ratnabai, AIR 1972 SC 637. The brief facts, necessary for understanding the background which necessitated the reference to the Full Bench are as follows:-- 2. A house, situate within the limits of Aliganj Town Area, District Etah, belonged to one Tajamul Hussain. He mortgaged it with Sultan Ali, Abdul Razzaq and Abdul Gaffar. The mortgagees were put in possession under the terms of the mortgage. The mortgagees, thereafter, let out the premises to Mir Khan, after taking rent deed from him, mentioning the rent at the rate ofRs. 3/8/- p. m. In the year 1963 Tajammal Hussain filed a Suit No. 163 of 1963 for redemption of mortgage against the mort...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »