Allahabad Court January 1980 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.
Chhedi Lal Vs. Haji Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All140
A.N. Verma, J.1. This is a decree holder's execution second appeal. It arises in the following circumstances.2. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money against Mohd. Amin and Mohd. Idris (respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively). In the suit the appellant got a house bearing Municipal No. B-16/127 Malti Bagh, Vara-nasi attached before judgment. The suit was decreed on 24-11-1952. The appellant made an application for execution by sale of the aforesaid house. Before the house could be sold Smt. Amina Bibi and Smt. Asiya Bibi-- respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal-- instituted a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that the house in question was not liable to be sold. However, during the pendency of this suit the house was sold to Haji Abdul Majid respondent No. 1 for Rs. 2,160/-. The sale was confirmed in favour of Haji AbdulMajid on 24-2-1955 and in pursuance of the auction sale possession was delivered to him on 31-5-1...
Smt. Bishni Devi Vs. Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All209
Deoki Nandan, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for injunction. Defendant-respondent Bahadur Singh is the own brother of the plaintiff-appellant. The third defendant-respondent Smt. Jamuna Devi is the wife of Bahadur Singh. The land in suit is agricultural. Mohan Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant and of the defendant-respondent No. 1 was the tenure holder, when he died in April, 1968. After his death the plaintiff, who claimed to have been in possession of the land in suit, got her name mutated as the tenure holder in place of her deceased father Mohan Singh. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was filed thereafter for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her cultivatory possession over the land in suit.2. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court reversed that decree and dismissed the suit on the ground that although the plaintiff was in possession of the land and her name was recorded as the tenure ...
Kamal Kishor Singh and anr. Vs. the State of U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ217
ORDERB.N. Katju, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying that the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dated 2-2-1979 and the proceedings against the applicants for the realization of fine of Bs, 20.000/- be quashed.2. Mahtab Singh, the father of the applicants, was convicted under Section 468 I. P. C. on three counts and sentenced to four years' R. I. under each count in S. T. 96 of 1960 by the judgment of the Sessions Judge of the link court of Sessions Judge Farrukhabad at Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as the judge) dated 18-6-1964. He was also convicted under Section 468 I. P. C. on three counts and sentenced to four years R. I. under each count by the judgment of the learned Judge dated 18-6-1964 passed in S.T. No. 97 of 1960. He was also convicted under Section 120B, I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R. I. and under Section 468 on ten counts and sentenced to four years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under each count by the judgment o...
Sri Chand Vs. Smt. Ramrati Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All294
A.N. Varma, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession over a house.2. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit, Hence this second appeal.3. Shortly stated, the plaint case was that the house in suit was owned by one Dayal, He died leaving behind three sons, namely, Baiju, Jaggu and Hanuman, Baiju had separated from the family. As a result, the house went exclusively to Jaggu and Hanuman. The former predeceased the latter, Hanuman died sixty years back leaving his widow Shrimati Parbati as his sole limited heir. Shrimati Parbati died on 21-10-1938, leaving the plaintiff who is the daughter of Shrimati Parbati aforesaid.4. The original defendant Debi Prasad, of whom the present respondent? are the heirs and legal representatives, was in possession of the house without any right or title. The cause of action arose on 21-10-1938 when Shrimati Parbati died and hence the suit for possession and damages.5. The suit was contested by Devi Prasad aforesai...
Smt. Sushila Devi Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1980
Reported in: [1980]123ITR77(All); [1980]4TAXMAN23(All)
H.N. Seth, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:' Whether, upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is valid in law that the amount of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 25,000, respectively; represented the income of the assessee from an undisclosed source '2. The assessee is an individual carrying on the business as the agent of Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Ltd. While making assessment for the year 1960-61, relevant accounting year for which was the financial year ending 31st March, 1960, the ITO found that the assessee had advanced a loan of Rs. 55,000 to one Banwarilal. When called upon to explain the nature and source of the loan, the assessee explained that in the year 1955, she had given a loan of Rs. 30,000 to one Sri Mangal Datt Shastri who paid it back to her on 4th September, 1959. She sold ornaments worth Rs. 28,298 in the year 1955 and it was from out of t...
Babool Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All173
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. In this petition directed against order passed by 6th Additional District Judge the question that survives for consideration is whether appellate authority was justified in rejecting claim of petitioner in respect of three minor unmarried daughters and whether land which was abadi could be taken into account for consideration of surplus land under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.2. The appellate authority found that all the three daughters of petitioner were minors and it was claimed on his behalf that they were unmarried. In rebuttal the State does not appear to have led any evidence. He disallowed the claim of petitioner only because it is not uncommon to find early marriage amongst villagers. It may be that early marriages may be taking place in villages but that is no ground for drawing an inference that petitioner's daughters were married during minority. It was to be decided on evidence on record. If the petitioner stated that his daughters ...
Smt. Aina Devi Vs. Bachan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All174
Deoki Nandan, J.1. This is a wife's first appeal from a judgment dated 8th May, 1976 of the Court of the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, dismissing her petition for declaring her marriage with the first respondent a nullity under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the first respondent was already married and had a wife living in the person of the second respondent, when he married the petitioner-appellant.2. The appellant's case as set out in her petition which is dated 13th May, 1974, was that the first respondent had married the second respondent some 10 years ago and a daughter Kamla was born to them prior to Samvat 2025, thatis 1968-69, and they were living as husband and wife since long before, it was then pleaded that the petitioner's father having died when she was about 7 or 8 years old, that is, some 15-16 years before the filing of the petition; and the pe-tioner's mother having become a cripple some 10 years ago and being unable to look after her cultivat...
Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Pali Ram Laxmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC89(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The only question of law that arises for consideration in this revision filed under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act by the Commissioner of Sales Tax is whether tikuli (prepared by glass or plastic, pasted on the forehead by ladies) was taxable as unclassified item as held by the revising authority or as cosmetic requisite.2. The appellate and the assessing authorities held it to be cosmetic as it was used for beautification by ladies, both married and unmarried. In revision, this finding was not set aside but it was held as an unclassified item because the department did not press its claim in respect of tikuli before the Full Bench in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jai Shri Products 1974 U.P.T.C. 146 (F.B.).3. The rationale of the order is patently erroneous. How could a concession by the standing counsel amount to a declaration of law What was not pressed before the Full Bench might have resulted in finality of judgment between the assessee and the department but...
Har Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All191
ORDERM.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. In brief the facts are these:-- 3. The petitioner received the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections, a true copy whereof is annexure No. 1 to the petition. The Prescribed Authority decided the said objections by his order dated 30-06-1976. The petitioner has not annexed to the petition any copy of the said order dated 30-6-1977. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 21-3-1977. Again no copy of the said judgment has been annexed to the petition. The appellate court remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions. After the remand the Prescribed Authority decided the case by his order dated 29-7-1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure 4 to the petition. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner and a true copy of the me...
Smt. Hubraji Vs. the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, U.P. Bi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1980All231
S.C. Mathur, J.1. This petition is directed against an order passed by the Assistant Custodian General Cum Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, U. P. and Bihar passed in two revisions, one filed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act (Act No. 44 of 1954) and the other filed under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act No. 31 of 1950). The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.The dispute in the petition relates to certain plots which admittedly originally belonged to Khurshed Hasan and Syed Mohd. Mujtaba. These two persons executed sale deeds on 31-10-1947, 12-4-1948 and 15-7-1948 in favour of Beni Ram. father of opposite parties 3 and 4 and Ganga Ram, opposite party No. 2. After execution of these sale deeds the said transferors migrated to Pakistan. On 16-2-1953 the Assistant Custodian issued notice under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »