Guwahati Court February 1959 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.
Md. Hanif Mia Vs. Haladhar Lahkar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
H. Deka, J. 1. This appeal was remanded to the trial court for a finding on two issues that were framed at the appellate stage by the High Court. Those issues were as follows: '(1) Whether the plaintiff has title to the property in suit (namely, both land and house)--and he was in possession thereof within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit; (2) Whether the plaintiffs title was eclipsed by virtue of adverse possession of the defendant.' The case was sent down to the learned Munsiff for recording evidence and forwarding the same to this court with his finding on the two issues. The learned Munsiff accordingly forwarded the evidence and his findings on the two issues covered by his judgment dated 26-11-58 and the appeal has come up for final disposal. The findings of the learned Munsiff on the two issues were in favour of the plaintiff and he held that the plaintiff had title to the property in suit, namely, both the land and the house and he was in possession thereof wi...
Bajranglal Nandalal Vs. Commissioner of Taxes
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-10-1959
Mehrotra, J. 1. The petitioner firm is a dealer registered under the Assam Sales Tax Act. 1947. For the return period ending on 30-9-1956, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax of Rs. 1.266 and odd by the Superintendent of Taxes, Gauhati. An appeal was filed on 7-2-57 against his order dated 4-1-57 under Section 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act to the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Assam. The petitioner under protest affixed a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10/- to the Memorandum of appeal, as required by the Assam Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1950: but paid no fee as required under Rule 74 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947.It is contended by the assessee that Rule 74 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires and consequently no fee could be demanded from it under the said rule. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes rejected the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 30 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, hereinafter called the rules, by his order dated 3-6-57. A...
Collector of Kamrup and ors. Vs. Kamakhyaram Barooah and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-06-1959
Mehrotra, J. 1. These are three applications far leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution against our judgment dated 10-2-1958. In our order in connection with the review petitions filed and disposed of today we have dealt with the facts of these cases elaborately. Two points which have been urged by the counsel for the applicants are that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction in reference to go into the validity of the acquisition proceedings and secondly it is contended that in view of the provision of Section 23 of Act 30 of 1952 (The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952) the acquisition even if invalid, has been validated and consequently this court could not have declared the order of acquisition invalid. A preliminary objection has been taken by theopposite parties to the maintainability of these applications. It is urged that the order is not a final orderwithin the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitutionand sec...
Ramdhari Sarma and anr. Vs. Jogendra Kumar Biswas
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-03-1959
Sarjoo Prosad, C.J. 1. The appeal relates to a suit for ejectment, which was tiled by the plaintiffs-appellants. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the disputed land from one Musst. Forhtunnessa Begum on 2-9-1950 along with other lands. At the time of the purchase, the defendant is said to have been in occupation of the suit land measuring one katha, comprised in a part of Dag No. 3923, as a tenant under the vendor. The vendor and after purchase, the plaintiffs also served a notice on the defendant to vacate the land in suit where he had some temporary structures of bamboos and thatches standing for residential purposes. The notice to quit asked the defendant to vacate the land by 31-1-1956, but as he refused to do so, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The defendant pleaded that the area occupied covered one katha 6 lechas and not a katha as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to the defendant, therefore, the suit was bad for splitting up the tenancy. The defendant also claimed th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›