Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.047 seconds)

Mar 14 1977 (HC)

Rikhiram Pyarelal and anr. Vs. Ghasiram Dukalu

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-14-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP189; 1978MPLJ527

j.p. bajpai, j.1. this second appeal is at the instance of the defendants against whom the claim of the respondent-plaintiff for possession and mesne profits has been decreed by both the courts below.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 27-6-1960, defendant no. 1 rikhiram executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of rs. 300/-. however, khasra no. 165/1 area 0.20 acres was described as the land sold. the case of the plaintiff was that the aforesaid description was under a mistake. what was actually intended to be sold and was sold was the land measuring 0.20 acres of khasra nos. 81 and 82/2. according to the plaintiff, he was also placed in possession of these khasra numbers and not of khasra no. 165/1 as stated in the sale deed. after entering into possession, his name was also mutated on these khasra numbers and the defendant rikhiram, despite notice, did not oppose the aforesaid mutation. mutation had already taken place in december 1960. thereafter, the plaintiff remained in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land for about 6 years. however, in november 1966, defendant no. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 2 purporting to sell 0.29 acres out of khasra nos. 81 and 82. defendant no. 2, after obtaining a sale deed dispossessed the plaintiff in november, 1966, and therefore, the plaintiff brought the present suit for possession immediately within 4 months, i. e. in march 1967.3. the case of the defendant was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1977 (HC)

Smt. Yuvrani Tank Rajeshwari Devi Vs. Harilal and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-15-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP201; 1978MPLJ433

n.c. dwivedi, j.1. this is an appeal by smt. yuvrani tank rajeshwari devi, the petitioner against the decision of the district judge, bilaspur, in misc. judicial case no. 2 of 1970 decided on 24th dec. 1971 whereby her petition under section 263 of the indian succession act was dismissed.2. late raja bahadur leeladhar singh was the ex-ruler of sakti and left behind him his widow smt. indumati devi respondent no. 2, smt. rajkumari gyanda devi respondent no. 5 is the daughter of late raja bahadur leeladhar singh. yuraj jivendranath bahadur singh was the pre-deceased son of late raja bahadur leeladhar singh. he left behind him his two sons. surendra nath bahadur singh and pushpendra nath bahadur singh, respondents 3 and 4 respectively and the petitioner his widow.3. respondent no. 1 had filed a petition in the court of district judge, bilaspur for obtaining a probate in respect of a will executed by late raja bahadur leeladhar singh. this was registered as civil suit no. 3-a of 1965. the grant of probate of the will was opposed by the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. respondent no. 3 surendra nath bahadur singh put in appearance through shri godbole, advocate of bilaspur and withdrew from the contest. on this, the probate of the will of late raja bahadur leeladhar singh was granted in favour of respondent no. 1 harilal.4. the petitioner's case is this : the petitioner and respondent no. 4 had put respondent no. 3 in charge of the proceedings in civil suit no. 3-a of 1965. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1977 (HC)

Brij Gopal Denga and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-09-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP122

g.p. singh, j. 1. in this petition under article 226 of the constitution, one of the points raised is that section 19 (c) (2) of the madhya pradesh cooperative societies act, 1960, is ultra vires for two reasons: first, that it offends article 19(1)(c) of the constitution; and secondly, that it suffers from excessive delegation. when the petition came up for admission before a division bench (k. k. dubey and r. k. tankha, jj.), the learned judges referred the petition to a bench of five judges. it was also impliedly indicated that the bench of five judges would first consider the question whether, when in a petition the constitutional validity of a state law is raised, the petition can be placed before a bench of two judges for purposes of admission in view of article 228a of the constitution. it is on this question that we have heard arguments and it is this question which. i proceed to decide by this order. 2. under the rules of the high court made in exercise of the powers conferred by article 225 of the constitution and clause 27 of the letters patent, a petition under article 226 is laid before a division bench for motion hearing. at the time of motion hearing, the court may either summarily dismiss the petition or order a rule nisi to be issued against the opposite party. the purpose of motion hearing is to find out whether the petition raises arguable points. if the bench hearing the petition at the admission stage finds that no arguable points are raised, the petition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1977 (HC)

Ravishanker Vs. Smt. Sharda Vishwakarma

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-21-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP44

j.s. verma, j.1. this appeal is against the judgment dated 5th july, 1977, passed by the fourth additional district judge, jabalpur, in civil suit no. 82-a of 1976. by that judgment, the trial court dismissed a joint application made by a married couple for grant of a divorce by mutual consent under section 13b of the hindu marriage act which has been inserted by the marriage laws (amendment) act, 1976 (no 68 of 1976). the trial court has held that a divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the newly added section 13b alone cannot be granted and it is necessary to prove the existence also of some other ground to enable grant of divorce. this has led to the present appeal also filed jointly by the couple.2. there is no controversy about thefacts.3. the facts pleaded and also (adequately proved by evidence adduced in the trial court are these: the parties were married at jabalpur on 19th june, 1975. they lived together only for 22 days thereafter and have, since then, been unable to live together. the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the newly added section 13b was filed on 23-11-1976. it was alleged therein that the parties lived together for only 22 days after their marriage at jabalpur on 19th june, 1975; that they had been living separately since then for a period of more than one year upto the date of petition, that there was no chance of their reconciliation and living togetherat any time in future and that they had mutually agreed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1977 (HC)

Kailash Narayan Vs. Bundi Bai and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-14-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP94; 1978MPLJ109

orderu.n. bhachawat, j.1. this is a revision by the defendant against the order of the civil judge, class ii, gohad, dated 24-4-1973 in civil suit no. 41-a/68 regarding the valuation of the suit and payment of court-fees.2. the short facts leading to this revision are these:the plaintiff-non-applicant no. 1 herein has filed a suit against the applicant and non-applicants nos. 2 and 3 in their capacity as the wife of non-applicant no. 3 (sic) for a declaration that the adoption of the applicant by non-applicant no. 3 is void and ineffective. the suit was valued initially at rs. 100/- and fixed court-fee of rs. 30/- was paid. on an objection having been raised by the applicant that the suit was under-valued and the court-fees paid were insufficient, ad valorem court-fee was required to be paid. on this objection, two preliminary issues were framed by the trial court which were issues nos. 4 and 5 reading as under: 'issue no. 4:d;k oknh us mfpr dksvz qhl fn;k gsa'issue no. 5:d;k bl u;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk vf/kdkj ugha gs 3. the trial court decided these issues vide its order dated 6-11-1970, the operative part whereof, relevant for consideration is thus:'para 10-- in view of the above rulings it is held that the plaintiff should value the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees at the market value of the property affected by the adoption. the arbitrary valuation put by the plaintiff at rs. 100/- and the fixed court-fees rs. 30/- paid by her is wrong.'4. being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1977 (HC)

Town Improvement Trust, Gwalior Vs. Sahajirao Angre and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-10-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP218; 1978MPLJ562

sharma, j.1. this is a petitionunder articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india for issuance of a writ setting aside the award, dated 27-4-1970, given by land acquisition officer, gwalior in land acquisition case no. 8/56/23/7 (annexure-b). the petitioner has also challenged section 50 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') as being unconstitutional.2. the case of' the petitioner, a body corporate constituted under the town improvement trust act is that in the city of gwalior near jinsinala an open piece of land, commonly known as garud saheb ka bada, 3 bigas and 5 biswas in area, was acquired for housing development scheme. the petitioner has referred to the different notifications issued under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the act. tahsildar, gwalior obtained possession over the land and handed it over to the petitioner on 29-11-1957.3. notification under section 9 was also issued in the proceedings relating to the acquisition. some persons, as have been named in paragraph 6 of the petition, submitted their objections and claimed compensation. respondent no. 1 was also one of the claimants and he claimed an amount of rs. 1,81,473.45 p, as the amount of compensation. the land acquisition officer after an enquiry gave an award of rs. 1,22,284.10 p. to respondent no, 1 for his part of the land.4. the grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was very much excessive and he did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1977 (HC)

Manoj Kumar Mundi and anr. Vs. Hari Gopal Rao Devasthale and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-21-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP29

s.r. vyas, j. 1. this is an appeal under section 110-d of the motor vehicles act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the award made by the additional motor accidents claims tribunal, gwalior in case no, 11/1975 dated 8th july, 1976.2. briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are these:--the appellant 1 manoj kumar is the minor son of appellant 2 keshavrao. an application under section 110-a of the act was filed by the appellants before the tribunal on the following allegations :--on 30-1-1975 two trailers bearing registration nos. mpw 5234 and 5192 belonging to some of the respondents were parked on a public lane known as 'jatar sahab-ki-gali' in the town of lashkar in such a negligent manner that one trailer was placed over the other in a tilting position at about 10.15 a.m. when the appellant manoj kumar a minor boy aged, about 10 years, passed by the side of these two trailers placed in the above position, one of the trailers bearing registration no. mpw 5234 slipped from above the trailer on which it was placed, and fell down on the person of the appellant manoj kumar with the result that he was seriously injured. he was rushed to the hospital and examined by the doctors and it was ultimately decided that his life could be saved only if the left leg, which was completely crushed because of the fall of the trailer, would be amputated. on the advice of the doctors the left leg was amputated and the boy thus suffered a permanent injury of the loss .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1977 (HC)

Jairam Gaya Prasad Mishra and anr. Vs. the State Transport Appellate T ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-18-1977

Reported in : AIR1977MP262; 1977MPLJ716

bajpai, j. 1. by this petition, thepetitioner, a transport operator, seeks to challenge the validity of the order passed by the state transport appellate tribunal quashing the notification issued by the r.t.a. inviting applications for grant of transport permits.2. the facts relevant are that in june, 1970, two stage carriage permits were granted to certain operators by the r.t.a. for the route tikamgarh to bijawar. these grants of permits were challenged before the state transport appellate tribunal and the state transport appellate tribunal set aside the same by its order dated 25-2-75 on the ground that the invitation issued by the r.t.a. for grant of permits and the consequent grant of the permits were all illegal, because there was no previous determination of the scope as contemplated under section 47 (3) of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referredto as the act). the case was, therefore, remanded to the r.t.a. for determining the scope and then to proceed further in the matter of grant of permit according to the provisions of the motor vehicles act.3. thereafter the regional transport authority vide its order dated 21-4-75 (annexure a) determined the scope on the aforesaid route for two daily return trips and the number of stage carriage buses fixed was two. after determining the scope, a notification (annexure b) was issued inviting applications for grant of permits accordingly. in the notification, instead of describing the extent of the scope as 'two daily .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1977 (HC)

Bhagwan Singh Vs. Mst. Kallo Maula Shah and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-03-1977

Reported in : AIR1977MP257; 1977MPLJ583

c. m. lodha, j. 1. the following question has been referred by one of us (u. n. bhachawat j.) to a larger bench:--'whether an order passed on an application under section 18 (3) of the madhya pradesh accommodation control act is appealable or revisable?'2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the revision are these:--the plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit in respect of the house in question against the applicant and non-applicant no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) on the ground that the accommodation had become unsafe for human habitation and was required, bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. the fourth civil judge, class ii, gwalior decreed the suit on 24-2-1967 in the following terms:-- 'the defendants nos. 1 and 2 do place the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit house by 24-2-1966 to enable them to do the repairs. after the defendantsdelivered possession as directed above the plaintiff do place the defendants in occupation of the suit house within one month of the completion of the said work.' 3. aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants filed appeal which was dismissed by the second additional district judge, gwalior who directed the defendants to hand over possession of the house to the plaintiff on or before 5-10-1966, it appears that by mutual agreement the time for delivery of possession of the house to the plaintiff was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 1977 (HC)

The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the Regional T ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-08-1977

Reported in : AIR1978MP1

bajpai, j.1. this petition underarticle 226 of the constitution of india was filed in october, 1976 and was admitted for final hearing by a division bench on 2-11-1976.2. by this petition, the petitioner-madhya pradesh state road transport corporation claims writ quashing the order made by the regional transport authority, jabalpur granting extension of route under the stage carriage permit held by respondent no. 2, the application for grant of extension was duly published and the petitioner filed an objection to the grant of extension on the ground inter alia that the proposed extension on mandla-jabalpur route forms part of the exclusive route as specifiedunder scheme no. 8, the approved scheme for nationalisation and as such the grant of extension was in violation of the aforesaid approved scheme under chapter iv-a of the motor vehicles act, 1939. however, according to the regional transport authority, the provisions of the scheme, as construed, did not make the route in question an exclusive route and therefore, the extension sought for was granted subject to the condition that respondent no. 2 shall not pick up or set down passengers between certain portions of the route, namely, jabalpur-barela and phoolsagar-mandla. the petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order instead of preferring an appeal or availing the remedy of revision provided under the act, approached this court to invoke the jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. the grounds relied .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //