Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1955 Page 3 of about 277 results (0.019 seconds)

Nov 08 1955 (HC)

Palani Goundan and anr. Vs. Vanjiakkal and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-08-1955

Reported in : (1956)1MLJ498

..... annum. this family dispute was settled by an arrangement dated 29th june, 1942 (exhibit a-1). the first defendant who is related to the parties, on the intervention of the mediators, was made the de facto guardian of this minor chinnan and he was entrusted with this property for being managed by him. he undertook that the maintenance of the minor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1955 (HC)

Gopinath Shetty (Minor) by Next Friend Father, K. Subbayya Shetty Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-14-1955

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ38

krishnaswami nayudu, j.1. this appeal raises an interesting question as to the legal effect of an adoption by a female member of an aliyasanthana family.2. the plaintiff is the appellant. himself and the defendants are members of an undivided aliyasanthana family known as yenmoor katta. the plaintiff's maternal grandmother kalamma was adopted by one peruvaje bainki banta. the plaintiff's case is that, notwithstanding her adoption to another family, she continued to be a member of the yenmoor katta family, visiting the family house occasionally and participating in the income of the family. the 1st defendant is at present the eldest member and the adalthedar of the family. defendants 2 and 3 are in possession of portions of the family property. the plaintiff's case is that he is entitled to maintenance from this family, that the adoption of his maternal grandmother did not have the effect of severing her from the family, as adoption was purely a secular affair and had no religious efficacy, the only object of such adoption being to secure for the adoptee the properties of the family into which she had gone in adoption. the defendants contended that the plaintiff being a descendant of kalamma could not be considered to belong to yenmoor katta family, that in fact kalamma lived in the family of the adoptive father, that she and her children instituted o.s. no. 596 of 1920 on the file of the district munsif's court, puttur, against the members of the katta family for maintenance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1955 (HC)

Bithal Das Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-02-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All156; [1956]30ITR647(All)

mootham, c.j.1. these are six applications under section 24 (4), u. p. agricultural income-tax act arising out of the refusal of the revision board to state a case for the opinion of this court. these six applications are based on the same facts and purport to raise common questions of law.2. one sri mahadeo prasad was in the year 1355 fasli the manager of a joint hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his widowed mother and his three sons, and in that year he was assessed to agricultural income-tax as the head of the family. in the following year sri mahadeo prasad filed an application before the collector, gorakhpur, who was the assessing authority, alleging that a separation had taken place in the family and that the shares of the members had been declared by a decree of the civil court dated 12-12-1948.the collector was satisfied that there had been a disruption of the joint family, and by an order dated 15-10-1949, he transferred the case to the assistant collector directing him to assess separately each of the six members of the family, the assistant collector- did so on 25-10-1949, when he passed a separate assessment order in respect of each of the six members of the family.3. on 6-12-1950, the state filed an application in revision against the orders of the col- lector and assistant collector dated respectively the 15th october and 25th october, 1949. it seems that the only prayer was that the assessment orders be set aside and it appears -that sri mahadeo .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 1955 (HC)

Munshi and ors. Vs. Chiranji Singh and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-02-1955

Reported in : AIR1956All237

raghubar dayal, j.1. two plots nos. 62/1 and 64/3 in village sahawali, pargana rajpura, tahsil gunnaur, district budaun, were mortgaged in 1891 with possession. the representatives of the mortgagor applied under section 12, u. p. agriculturists' relief act (no. 27 of 1934) for an order directing that the mortgage be redeemed and that they be put in possession of the mortgaged property. they deposited rs. 65/- alleging it to be the amount which was due on the mortgage.the representatives of the mortgagee objected to the redemption of the mortgage and the assistant collector enquired into the matter and held that plot no. 62/1, which corresponded to the theft plot no. 111, had not been mortgaged and that rs. 65 was the amount due under the mortgage. he ordered redemption of the mortgage with respect to plot no. 64/3, corresponding to the then plot no. 77, payment of the money deposited to the mortgagee and delivery of possession to the mortgagor.on appeal to the district judge under section 23, agriculturists' belief act, the order of the assistant collector was maintained. the appellate order was passed on 14-4-1945.2. in may 1949 more than three years after the passing of the appellate order the representatives of the mortgagor-decree-holders applied in execution for the recovery of possession. this application was dismissed as time-barred.3. the representatives of the mortgagor then filed another application under section 12, agriculturists' relief act in the court of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1955 (HC)

Gaya Deen Vs. Mst. Amrauti

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-04-1955

Reported in : AIR1955All630

agarwala, j. 1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a property which was in possession of one mst. newasi while she was alive and which she had, during her life-time, transferred by means of a sale deed to the respondent. the facts briefly stated are as follows:there were three brothers, debi prasad, shiva prasad and mahabir, who formed a joint hindu family. shiva prasad died in 1906 leaving smt. sambodha as his widow; mahabir died in 1916 leaving smt. newasi as his widow; and debi prasad died in 1925 leaving smt. tulsa as his widow. as the brothers were all members of a joint hindu family, on the death of shiva prasad the estate passed to debi prasad and mahabir; and on the death of mahabir, debi prasad was the sole surviving coparcener of the property, and in law became the exclusive owner of the property, and the widows had only a claim for maintenance.the plaintiff-appellant is a collateral of debi prasad. on the deaths of shiva prasad and mahabir, however, the names of their widows were entered. smt. sambodha's name was entered over one-third of the property and so was the name of newasi entered over another one-third of the property. apparently the names of shiva prasad, mahabir and debi prasad were entered on the record as owners of the property in equal shares, though no village record has been filed in the case showing the nature of the entry.2. after the death of shiva prasad and mahabir, smt. sambodha, jointly with debi prasad, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1955 (SC)

indira Sohanlal Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1956SC77; [1955]2SCR1117

jagannadhadas, j. 1. this is an appeal by special leave against the order of the custodian-general of evacuee property dated the 20th may, 1953, revising an order of the additional custodian of east punjab, delhi, dated the 20th march, 1952. the two questions raised before us on the facts and circumstances, to be stated, are (1) whether the custodian-general had the revisional power which he purported to exercise, and (2) was the order of the custodian-general on its merits such as to call for interference by this court. 2. the appellant before us, one mrs. indira sohanlal, is a displaced person from lahore. she was the owner of a house at lahore known as 5, danepur road. malik sir firoz khan noon of west pakistan owned 766 bighas of agricultural land in a village called punjab khore within the state of delhi. an oral exchange is said to have taken place between these two, of the said properties, on the 10th october, 1947. in pursuance of that exchange malik sir firoz khan noon is said to have taken possession of the danepur road house. the appellant is also said to have been put in possession of the said agriculture lands in punjab khore presumably by way of attornment of tenants who were in actual cultivating possession of the lands. under section 5-a of the east punjab evacuees' (administration of property) act, 1947 (east punjab act xiv of 1947), as amended in 1948 and applied to the state of delhi, such a transaction required confirmation by the custodian. in compliance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1955 (SC)

Sadhu Ram Vs. the Custodian-general of Evacuee Property

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-28-1955

Reported in : AIR1956SC43; [1955]2SCR1113

jagannadhadas, j.1. this is an application under article 32 of the constitution which arises under the following circumstances. the petitioner, sadhu ram, purchased from one imam-ud-din, a muslim evacuee, 43 bighas 14 biswas of agricultural land comprised in khasra nos. 2135 to 2139, 2158, 2159, 2171, 2204 and 2206 with shamlat rights in village kaithal, district karnal, punjab. the sale deed was executed on the 6th september, 1947, and registered on the 9th september, 1947, before imam-ud-din left for pakistan. the consideration therefore was rs. 3,000 and as much as rs. 2,700 thereof appears to have been paid by the petitioner to the vendor before the sub-registrar. possession also was transferred on the execution of the sale-deed. mutation was made by the revenue authorities on the 23rd january, 1948. east punjab evacuees' (administration of property) act, 1947 (east punjab act xiv of 1947) came into force on the 12th of december, 1947. it was amended by east punjab evacuees' (administration of property) (amendment) ordinance, 1948 (east punjab ordinance no. ii of 1948) which came into force on the 16th january, 1948. this gave place to east punjab evacuees' (administration of property) (amendment) act, 1948 (east punjab act xxvi of 1948) which came into force on the 11th april, 1948. by these amendments a new section, section 5-a, was inserted in the east punjab act xiv of 1947. it will be seen that these amendments were subsequent to the date of the execution and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1955 (SC)

Mohammad Baqar and ors. Vs. Naim-un-nisa Bibi and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-09-1955

Reported in : AIR1956SC548

venkatarama ayyar, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 31-5-1935 by the first respondent, mst. naimunnisa bibi and her sister, khadija-ul-kubra bibi, since deceased, for partition of their shares in the estate of their father, sheik ataullah, who died sometime in 1892. the defendants to the action were their brothers, sheik kifayatullah and sheik mohammad baqar.the plaintiffs alleged that after the death of their father, sheik ataullah, they and the defendants were living together as members of one family, that the first defendant was in management of the properties on behalf of all of them, that on 10-8-1933 the defendants executed a deed of waqf-alal-aulad for the benefit of their descendants, and that the said deed was a denial of their rights. they accordingly prayed for partition and delivery of 14/48th share in the estate of the deceased sheik ataullah, which they claimed as belonging to them, for an account of the management of the same by the first defendant from 1892 and for future mesne profits from 2-2-1934.the defendants contested the suit on three grounds, viz., (1) that there was a family custom excluding the female heirs from sharing in the inheritance, (2) that in 1893 there was a family settlement under which the plaintiffs gave up their rights to share in the estate, and (3) that the claim of the plaintiffs was extinguished by adverse possession on the part of the defendants, arid that the suit was barred by limitation.2. the additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1955 (HC)

Kahan Chand Vs. Gyan Chand

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-10-1955

Reported in : AIR1956HP41

ramabhadran, j.c. 1. this appeal had come up before this court on an earlier occasion, when, as per my learned predecessor's order dated 9-6-1953, the lower appellate court was directed to take action under order 23, rule 3 and to submit its findings to this court. in pursuance of that order, the senior subordinate judge of mahasu has made an inquiry into the alleged compromise. his findings are:-- firstly, that the parties arrived at a, compromise and that its terms are embodied in ex. p. a. secondly, that the compromise was lawful, and, thirdly, that the compromise did not need registration or to be stamped. in view of his findings, the senior subordinate judge was of the opinion that the suit had been 'completely adjusted.' thereupon, he goes on to remark:--'since the compromise deed includes properties that are not included in the suit, the parties will have to fall back on the compromise deed and act or get enforced their rights and liabilities arising therefrom. so far as the present suit is concerned, the same in my opinion stands adjusted.'2. objections to the report of the lower appellate court have been filed by the respondent, but not by the appellant. the appellant, however, was allowed, during the course of arguments, to show cause against the report of the senior subordinate judge.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. as far as the factum of compromise is concerned, i am of the opinion that the court below has rightly held that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1955 (HC)

Luharo and ors. Vs. Lafiya and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-15-1955

Reported in : AIR1955HP61

orderramabhadran, j.c.1. i have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of court-fee. learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit, giving rise to this appeal, was really one for declaration and the prayer for correction of the entries in the revenue records was an unnecessary surplusage. in fact, he pointed out that the civil court could not legally direct the correction of the revenue record. he, therefore, contended that as a suit for declaration, the court-fee paid, i.e., rs. 15/-, was in accordance with schedule ii, article 17 (iii), court-fees (himachal pradesh amendment) act, 1952.2. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that we must look to the plaint as it stands. he urged that it was immaterial whether the consequential relief, claimed in the plaint, could be granted by the civil court or not.3. it seems to me that, in construing the plaint, the court must look at the substance of the plaint rather than at its mere form. i am supported in this view by-- 'verkata ranga rao v. sitarama chandra rao', air 1941 mad 91 (a), where wadsworth, j., observed as follows: 'in matters of court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction, the real substance of the suit and not the form in which it has been clothed, should be looked to.'4. in--tewary kora v. bhupat mander', air 1919 pat 13 (1) (b), the facts were that the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were occupancy tenants and not mere tenure-holders. they further prayed for a .....

Tag this Judgment!


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