Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: madhya pradesh Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.058 seconds)

Feb 28 1992 (HC)

Badrilal and ors. Vs. Rampyari and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1992MP231

r.c. lahoti, j.1. one set of defendants, consisting of defendants nos. 2 to 9, hascome up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the two courts below, directing the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondents nos. 1 to 4 to be decreed in part granting a decree of declaration of title with respect to the part of the suit property, also declaring plaintiffs' entitlement to take water from the two wells proportionate with certain shares. the trial court has held that the four plaintiffs with mangilal, the defendant no. 1 are bhumiswamis of the land described in para 12(a) of the plaint, also entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue papers accordingly, that the plaintiffs are entitled to take water from the well s. no. 164 to the extent of 1/4th; that s. no. 443 area 3 acres 8 decimal had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs and mangilal the defendant no. 1 and they were the bhumiswamis entitled to have their name mutated in the revenue papers; that the plaintiffs were also entitled to take water from the well s. no. 419 to the extent of 3/8th. as to land s. no. 163 and s. no. 155/1968, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking separate possession by partition and recovery of mesne profits has been directed to be dismissed.2. the following is the family tree of the parties which has not been disputed:-- kunwarji (died 100 years before) _______________________________|____________________ | | shobharam (widow-chandanma) mukund (died 1933)(died 1971) (died .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1992 (HC)

Ravindra Bahadur Singh S/O Raja Birendra Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Ma ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-12-1992

Reported in : 1993(0)MPLJ512

ordergulab c. gupta, j.1. the petitioner is the son of late rani padmavati devi and claims interest in lands and building of khasra no. 11, telibandha, raipur owned by her. he feels aggrieved by the order dated 20th september 1988 (annexure-d) of the respondent state granting permission to the respondent no. 2 to sell the said land and challenges its legality and validity by filing this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india.2. there is no dispute between the parties that the lands and building under dispute were owned by late rani padmawati devi who died intestate at bhopal on 12th april 19871eavingbehindherhusbandrajabirendrabahadur singh, her two sons, the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 and two daughters. there is also no dispute between the parties that the lands in dispute were covered by the provisions of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ceiling act) and that 4738 sq. metres thereof was liable to vest in the state. it is also admitted that the respondent-state exercising powers under section 20(1)(a) of the ceiling act exempted the said land from the operation of the said act by its order dated 18-5-1983 (annexure-a) on the condition that the same would not be sold or otherwise alienated and will be used for residence of servants and staff members. there is also no dispute that the late rani complied with these conditions during her life time, giving no cause of complaint to anyone.3. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1992 (HC)

MohinuddIn and anr. Vs. President, Municipal Committee, Khargone

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-02-1992

Reported in : AIR1993MP5; 1993(0)MPLJ333

s.d. jha, j. 1. this second appeal by the plaintiffs who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court, was, by order dated 2-3-79, as amended by order dated 29-6-92, was admitted for final hearing on the substantial questions of law set out below:--(1) whether the lower appellate court committed an error in law in dismissing the suit for declaration of plaintiffs' title over the suit land on the ground that the document ex.p/1 was not registered ? (2) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower court erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs? 2. the plaintiffs are sons of badruddin who died some time in the year 1924. they claim that their father badruddin, on 28-2-20 vide sale-deed ee. p/1 purchased from one anver sheikh mohammad an open land for a consideration of rs. 25/- as desribed in para 1 of the plaintiff, situated at khargone. the sale-deed is in 'urdu' and its 'hindi' translation is ex. o/1a. after the death of their father, they become the owners of the land in question. the plaintiffs applied to nagar palika khargone for permission to construct a building on the land, but nagar palika declined to grant permission denying that plaintiffs title over the land as also urging that the title vested in nagar palika. the plaintiffs therefore, after serving requisite notice, filed a suit for declaration of their title over the land as also for declaration that they are entitled to construct building on the same.3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1992 (HC)

Smt. Krishna Bai and ors. Vs. Shivnath Singh and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-08-1992

Reported in : AIR1993MP65

d.m. dharmadhikari, j.1. the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed by both the courts below. the plaintiffs as members of the joint hindu family claimed a declaration in the suit that the registered gift deed dated 14-4-1969 (ex.p.1), executed by defendant no. 1 bir bahadur singh in favour of defendant no. 2 vishram singh (who was sister's son of the donor), was invalid in law as the suit land which is the subject matter of the gift was an item of joint hindu family property and could not be transferred without the consent of the other members of the family as per the benaras school of mitakshara hindu law, applicable to the vindhya pradesh region. the defendants set up a case of partition between the members of the family which was accepted by the lower appellate court and it was held that bir bahadur singh could validly make a gift of the suit land which was his separate property obtained by him in partition. apart from the documents in the shape of revenue records and oral evidence of partition, the partition was sought to be proved on the basis of the partition list ex.d.2 said to have been prepared by the parties as evidenced by receipt ex.d. 1 regarding entrustment of such partition list to the parties to the partition. the receipt mentions the date as ashadh badi 14 samwat 2009, which the parties agree would be a date some times in july 1952 as per the english calendar.2. the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal raised two questions of law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1992 (HC)

Laxminarayan S/O Bhoormal Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-27-1992

Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ327

orders.k. jha, c.j.1. on a difference of opinion between b. c. varma, j. recorded on 13-2-1991 and that of r.d. shukla, j. recorded on 24-6-1991, the case has come up before me.2. the question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the legal proceedings (the suit) be stayed and the matter for adjudication be referred to an arbitrator, by invoking the power of the court under section 34 of the arbitration act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act). the court below has directed that further proceedings in the suit be stayed and the dispute within the parties be referred to arbitration. the plaintiff preferred this appeal against the order of the trial court. b. c. varma, j. by his order dated 13-2-1991, was of the opinion that the appeal be allowed and the order dated 24-11-1987 passed by the lower court staying the proceedings in the suit be set aside and the application under section 34 of the act be rejected, and the trial court should now proceed with the suit in accordance with law. r. d. shukla, j, by his order dated 24-6-1991, on the contrary, has recorded that there being no conscious participation in the proceedings in the suit, mere request for filing the power and the written statement should not be deemed to be a step in the proceedings, and that, therefore, the appeal be dismissed.3. shorn of all details, the facts which are admitted and on the basis of which this appeal can be decided are these:on 29-4-1983, the plaintiff/appellant instituted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 1992 (HC)

M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appellate Tr ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-16-1992

Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ931

orders.k. chawla, j.1. in this writ petition, filed a decade back, the m. p. state road transport corporation, challenges a revisional order passed by s.t.a.t., m. p., gwalior dated 25-1-1982 (annex. d) renewing stage carriage permit of respondent no. 3, m/s. prabhat transport company.2. first a few facts which are uncontroverted. respondent no. 3, m/s. prabhat transport company, is a private route operator which held an old regular stage carriage permit of the year 1962 (permit no. 41/62) over inter-state route achalpur-chincholi via betul. the said permit was issued by 's.t.a., m.p., gwalior and was countersigned by s.t.a., maharashtra under the terms of reciprocal agreement. the permit was being renewed from time to time. the last validity of the permit expired on 25th of july, 1980. meanwhile respondent no. 3, i.e. the permit holder, made an application for renewal of the said permit to s.t.a., m. p., gwalior, 180 days in advance i.e. on 28-1-1980. on 16-5-980, the petitioner in the present petition, i.e. the m.p.s.r.t.c. filed an objection to the renewal of the said permit, as well as applied for a fresh grant of permit in lieu of renewal. there was delay in the hearing of the matter because the chairman of the s.t.a. was transferred. the hearing took place after about 19 months from the time the renewal application was made. the hearing by the s.t.a. thus took place on 25-8-1981, which was followed by an order, annex. b, on the following day i.e. on 26-8-1981. by that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1992 (HC)

Badrilal S/O Balu Vs. General Manager M.P. State Rtc

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-28-1992

Reported in : 2(1993)ACC134

v.d. gyani, j.1. this misc. appeal under section 110(d) of the m.v. act 1939 arises out of award dated 4.9.85 passed by the member, motor accidents claims tribunal, mandsaur in claim case no. 37/83.2. the appellant is a milkman. he used to come to mandsaur from his nearby village every day on bicycle for supplying milk. on 27.12.82 he was returning home with his friend madan lal, who was slightly ahead of him. it was near village nipaniya meghraj on mhow neemuch road; that the appellant's bicycle got entangled with the left front side of the bus no. c.p.r. 9252 belonging to the respondent-corporation and driven by respondent no. 3. in this entangled position he was dragged for a few paces before falling on the ground just infront of the bus which had also stopped.3. appellant's case was that the bus dashed him from back side it was being driven at a speed of 60-70 k.m. per hour. the learned member on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties has held that it was the appellant who was negligent and the respondent no. 3 was in no way liable for damages. the tribunal also found that the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability, although he had sustained a fracture of the right femur which to be operated for extraction of hail under g. a. and the tribunal has assessed special damages on that account.4. as against appellant's total claim of rs. 92,400/- which included both general and special damages, the tribunal has assessed rs. 29,493/- as compensation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1992 (HC)

Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Municipal Corporation

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-16-1992

Reported in : 1992(0)MPLJ764

k.l. issrani, j.1. the present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1984, passed by shri s. k. tiwari, additional judge to the court of district judge, sagar, in civil appeal no. 41-a of 1984 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1983, passed by the second civil judge, class ii, sagar, in civil suit no. 72-a of 1974.2. the municipal corporation, sagar, had filed a civil suit for ejectment against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was tenant in the suit premises at the rate of rs. 5/- per month. the appellant has failed to pay arrears of rent. the premises were also in a dilapidated condition. the suit property was an evacuee property belonging to an evacuee and the said property was purchased by the respondent corporation in an auction from the central government under the provisions of the displaced persons (compensation and rehabilitation) act, 1954 (hereinafter called the 1954 act). in the alternative, it was submitted that in case it is found that the appellant was not a tenant, the suit for ejectment should be decreed on the basis of title.3. the defence of the appellant/defendant was that he was a tenant but in adverse possession. there was no privity of contract of tenancy between him and the corporation.4. the trial court held that the respondent corporation is the owner of the suit premises. it was earlier an evacuee property belonging to the central government. the appellant was not a tenant but a licensee. but it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1992 (HC)

Ku. Anju Khatri Vs. Gyanchand and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-25-1992

Reported in : 1994CriLJ2274

ordershacheendra dwivedi, j.1. this case was registered on a letter from the prosecutrix. ku. anju khatri relating to the case registered for an offence under sections 376/34, i.p.c. wherein, accused gyanchand and kamal jain were apprehended by police, vidisha. the two accused having been allowed bail by the trial court the cancellation thereof and the transfer of the case from the court of additional sessions judge, vidisha (sh p. d. maran) is prayed. earlier, on an application being made by accused gyanchand for bail, this court having considered all the available material and the circumstances of the case had dismissed the application under a detailed order dated 18-3-91 in cr. misc. case no. 448/91. on facts, the case of co-accused kamal jain is also similar and not distinguishable from accused gyanchand.2. later, a further application for bail was made by accused gyanchand on a special ground of illness of his father, submitting that his presence was required for attending his father, but that too was dismissed on 4-7-91 in cr. misc. case no. 1243/91.3. a brief narration of facts would facilitate the further discussion. according to prosecution, when prosecutrix ku. anju was returning home from her friends' house and happen to pass in front of the house of accused kamal jain, the accused persons, whom she used to call as uncle, taking advantage of their position as such, took her upstairs on the pretext of giving her the photo reels. at that time, the mother of accused .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1992 (HC)

Gopibai Manaklal and ors. Vs. Mohammed HussaIn and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-1992

Reported in : AIR1993MP21; 1992(0)MPLJ757

r.c. lahoti, j.1. the defendants have come up in appeal aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below directing a suit for redemption of mortgage to be decreed.2. the suit was filed by the two daughters and a son of late haidarali. the relationship of haidarali with late hasanali as set out in plaint para 1 was as under:-- nazarali ___________________________________________________________ | | | | haidarali rajabali kalabhai hasanali __________________________________________________________ | | | hussainabai mod hussain sugrabaion 24-6-1932, late hussanali made a mortgage with possession of the house with late nandram and his two sons namely, manaklal and motilal. according to the plaint allegations, late nandram had expired four to five years prior to the institution of the suit. the suit having been instituted on 19-7-67, the time of death of late nandram would be somewhere in the year 1962 or 1963. the suit was instituted impleading manakal and motilal as defendants nos. 1 and 2 also joining the sons of manaklal and motilal as pro forma defendants nos. 3 to 7. puran, the defendant no. 8 was joined as pro forma party being a tenant in the mortgaged house.3. the suit was contested on very many grounds of which only two deserve to be noticed. it was submitted that the pltfs alone had no right to institute the suit as all the heirs of late hasanali were not joined as plaintiffs or as pro forma defendants. secondly, it was submitted that late nandram was also .....

Tag this Judgment!


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