Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Mad103
..... was afflicted with leprosy, the plaintiff did not want to live with him and she resorted to questionable ways of living, which the defendant's family resented. due to a mediation effected at the instance of the relations, the plaintiff entered into full satisfaction of the decree in o. s. no. 15 of 1943 under the original of ex. b-2 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-15-1977
Reported in : (1978)1MLJ248
v. sethuraman, j.1. this is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in o.s. no. 107 of 1969 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge of chidambaram. there was one rengasami vandayar, who died in or about 1940. his four sons are booraswami, the plaintiff, rajakannu, the first defendant, chinnadurai, the second defendant and dharmalinga, the third defendant. he owned certain properties. according to the plaintiff the four sons of rengasami vandayar were living as members of a hindu undivided family till about 1964. in that year there was a division of the movables and the respective brothers started separate messes. the parties were, it is said, put in possession of the properties of the joint family for the purpose of convenient enjoyment. the second defendant was alleged to have entered into partition with his sons, defendants 4 to 6, later on under which some of the joint family properties were sought to be divided. according to the plaintiff, some properties had been purchased in the names of defendants 4 to 8 out of joint family funds. the plaintiff, therefore, issued a registered notice to the defendants on 1st september, 1969 to have all the joint family properties divided and allotted by metes and bounds. there was no reply and the plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the present suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit properties.2. the third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. he admitted .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-06-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ori125; 44(1977)CLT597
s. acharya, j. 1. the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below has preferred this appeal. 2. the plaintiff's case in short is that he purchased the suit land by oral sale en 25-10-54 from laxmi bewa, the original, owner thereof, for rs. 95/- and took delivery of possession of the same. thereafter he continued in peaceful possession of the property and got the same mutated in his name. after the death of laxmi bewa on 2-2-55 the plaintiff obtained permission from the municipality for constructing a house on the suit land. the plaintiff remained absent from baripada for a long time and in 1962 he came to learn that defendant no. 1 was trying to construct a house forcibly on the suit site. so the plaintiff initiated a proceeding under section 145 cr. p. c. which ultimately was decided in favour of defendant no. 1. hence this suit. 3. defendant no. 1's case is that he orally purchased the suit land from lax-mi dei for rs. 60/- on 30-5-41 and got delivery of possession of the same. laxmi died in the year 1943. defendant no. 1 thereafter built a house on that land in november, 1950 after obtaining the necessary permission from the municipality. the plaintiff's case of purchase of the suit land by him has been denied by this defendant and he asserts that the plaintiff by fraudulent means got the suit property mutated in his name without the knowledge of this defendant.defendant no. 2 on his own application was impleaded as a party in the suit. his case was that he being the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Ori182; 45(1978)CLT409
r.n. misra, j.1. defendants have carried this appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the learned additional subordinate judge of puri in a suit for partition.2. parties are related in the manner indicated below:-- x _______________________________|______________________________ | | | bhagaban michhu hadibandhu | _______________|__________ | padmanav | | balf widow bholi basu widow landi (d.1) | suna (p.1) (died) nidhi (d.2) | during | banadhihari suit) kasinath widow widow (d.2 ka) hema dukhi (p.2) (d.1) | brundaban (d.1 ka)plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the properties in the hotchpot alleging that there had been no partition among the three branches of which the common ancestors were bhagaban, michhu and hadibandhu. with the aid and assistance of joint family nucleus several acquisitions were made and such properties have also been included in the hotchpot for partition on the footing that they were impressed with joint family character. the kha schedule property represents the moveables while the ga schedule relates to money-lending business of the family. plaintiffs, averred that they were beingdeprived of the benefits of the joint family properties and when they demanded partition, the same was not accepted too. thus the suit was filed in forma pauperis asking for one-third share.3. bali and bholi filed a written statement pleading previous partition among the three branches prior to 1927 when the current settlement operations began. the said .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-11-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori167; 44(1977)CLT186
p.k. mohanty, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing decree arising out of a suit for declaration of title to, confirmation or in the alternative recovery of possession of the suit land and for issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.2. the plaintiff's case runs thus: one hari bhoi was the recorded raiyat in respect of the suit land. the land was lying fallow and the plaintiff, after constructing a small thatched hut, began to live there. subsequently, the said hari bhoi sold the land to the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 95/- under an unregistered sale deed dated 18-3-65 and gave formal delivery of possession thereof to him. the plaintiff, after his purchase, improved the suit land, constructed a two-roomed house thereon and possessed the same on payment of rent to the landlord. on 8-2-63 the defendants 1 and 2 obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the said hari bhoi and got their names mutated in respect thereof by practising fraud on the revenue authorities.3. defendants 1 and 2 denied the plaint allegations and contended that hari bhoi, the recorded tenant, while in actual possession of the suit land, sold the same in their favour under the registered sale deed dated 9-2-63 on receipt of cash consideration and put them in possession. they further contended that before their purchase, hari bhoi was residing in a two-roomed house standing on the suit land which had become dilapidated for want of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori174; 44(1977)CLT199
s.k. ray, j.1. this is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the reversing decision of the district judge, balangir-kalahandi dated 20-11-73 passed in title appeal no 54 of 1971.plaintiffs filed the suit for division of the suit lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share each to plaintiff no. 1, plaintiff no. 3, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2.2. plaintiffs and defendants are members of one family as will appear from the following genealogy: baiju munda (dead) ______________________________|___________________________________ | | | chamru tiknu (dead) lachhman (dead) (died before marriage) =kandri =kunda munda (dead) _________________________|_______________________ | | | | | | lepa (dead) ghungi kali ladi @ kamala bimla | (dead) sari (p-3) (p.1) gandaram | | | (d-1) | kandarpa (p-4) magsira (p.2) | _______________|________________ | | arjun (dead) mahanga | (died without issue) tapi (d-2)the suit land is 7.22 acres appertaining to holding no. 8 in mouza mahammadpur and admittedly belonged to tiknu and on his death it constituted ancestral property in the hands of his successors in interest. there is no dispute now that kandri, widow of tiknu, died some time before 1936 when last record-of-rights in respect of the suit land was prepared. in this record-of-rights, ghungi's name was solely recorded in respect of the suit land. while claiming partition, the plaintiffs explained this recording on the ground that as bethi system was in vogue in the area, they .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-31-1977
Reported in : AIR1977P& H141
s.s. sandhawalia, j.1. the significant question of law before this fullbench on a reference has been succinctly formulated in the following terms:--'whether a female who is possessed of land under a gift made by a limited owner prior to the enforcement of the hindu succession act becomes full owner after the enforcement of the act?'the salient facts from which the issue arises are hardly in dispute. the original male owner of the suit land was one matu. on his death his wife smt. sunder succeeded to his estate as a limited owner. however, she absolutely gifted one-half share in khewat no. 58 in favour of her husband's brother's daughter smt. parmeshwari defendant and the mutation in respect thereof was sanctioned on the 28th of august, 1953. the donee was apparently put in possession of the said property. the hindu succession act came into force on the 17th of june, 1956 and about 5 years thereafter smt. sunder, the donor, died some time in 1961. a suit was then brought on the 2nd of march, 1963, by smt. santokhi, the real sister of smt. parmeshwari donee, for a declaration that the gift in the latter's favour was invalid on the primary ground thatsmt. sunder, the original donor, held only a life estate in the land in dispute and was, therefore, not entitled to make an absolute gift thereof. the suit was contested by smt. parmeshwari defendant but was decreed by the trial court.2. on appeal, the judgment and decree above-mentioned was affirmed by the first appellate court. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-02-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Delhi255; 14(1978)DLT153; 1978RLR205
t.v.r. tatachari, c.j.(1) when suit no. 582 of 1967 came up for hearing before s. s. chadha j. on 30th september, 1975, on the original side of this court, the learned judge noticed that there was a conflict of judicial opinion as regards the scope of the expression 'persons suing' in section 69(2) of the indian partnership act, 1932. considering that the said question of law is one which arises frequently in suits instituted by firms and, thereforee, requires to be decided by a larger bench, the learned judge referred the following question :- 'whetherthe expression 'persons suing' in section 69(2) of the act means 'all the partners of the firm who were its partners at .the time of the accrual of the cause of action' or it means' all the partners of the firm who are its partners at the time of the institution of the suit' ?'it is thus that this matter has. come up before us for our opinion on the aforesaid question of law.(2) for a proper appreciation of the question that has been referred, it is necessary to state briefly the facts of the case. the plaintiff firm was constituted under the name of m/s. shaaker housing corporation, tilak nagar, new delhi, and a deed of partnership. ex. public witness 5/1, was executed on 1st november, 1959, between sarvashri raghbir singh, net ram, tek chand,hari shanker bhargava, lala matu mal gupta and lala moti ram. exhibit d.5 is a certified copy of .form 'a', and it shows that the firm was registered on 9th june, 1960, with the aforesaid .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Raj229
sachar, j.1. this petition has been filed against the judgment of the board of revenue against the proceedings under ceiling law which were started against one smt. chandrakanta under chapter iii-b added to the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (hereinafter to be called the 'old law').2. the land was originally recorded in the name of one smt. gulab bai, who had adopted govindlal, son of petitioner no. 1. after the death of smt. gulab bai, the land was recorded in the name of govindlal and after his death, in the name of smt. chandrakanta, who was recorded as the khatedar tenant. since she was holding the land in excess of the ceiling area, notices were issued to her and the present petitioners joined the proceedings and claimed one-fourth share in favour of each of the three petitioners and one-fourth share in favour of bam narain, another son of kesharilal. an effort was made before the authorities to contend that the petitioners were in possession of the land since 1957 on the basis of one mutation entry made in that year, though that entry was not repeated subsequently. the authorities below have come to the conclusion that in view of the entry in the name of smt. chandrakanta as a khatedar tenant, the land must be presumed to belong to her and on that basis surplus area has been determined under chapter iiib of the rajasthan tenancy act, taking smt. chandrakanta as a khatedar tenant. the petitioners having failed in the proceedings before the board of revenue, have come up to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-25-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)14
m.l. joshi, j.1. this is a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of sub-divisional officer dated 18th of october, 1975 (ex. 3) and the order dated 22nd of october, 1975 of the revenue appellate authority bikaner (ex. 4).2. this facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows: one deceased khivsingh was holding 440 bighas of nahari land. khiv singh died on 7th of august, 1966 leaving behind him two sons karni singh and nathusingh and three daughters uchabkanwar (petitioner) smt. jatankanwar and smt. pusupkanwar besides two widows smt. jaskanwar and smt. bhim kanwar. according to the petitioner, on the death of khivsingh the land held by deceased khivsingh devolved upon his heirs, namely, sons, daughters and widows and the petitioner received her share in the land by succession which was recorded in the jamabandi by mutation in her favour.3. the further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of chapter iiib of the rajasthan tenancy act deceased khivsingh submitted a declaration regarding the lands held by him but no progress could be made in the matter of determination of the ceiling area in respect of the land held by him during his life time. the sub-divisional officer hanumangarh, however, by his order dated 5-11-73 in the course of determination of the ceiling area came to hold that out of the heirs of deceased khiv singh only nathu singh and karnisingh were entitled to .....Tag this Judgment!