Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-06-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN(UC)164
1. this writ petition by smt. kesar bai widow of mishrilal directed against the order of the board of revenue dated 1.2.1966 reviewing its earlier order dated 23.2.1962, as also its subsequent order dated 29.2.1968, raises the question whether or not the india succession act, 1925 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the act) or any corresponding law requiring attestation of wills, was in force in the erstwhile princely state of bundi.2. the petitioner's husband mishrilal was a recorded khatedar tenant of 70 bighas and 7 biswas of land situate in village heerapur in the former state of bundi. it is alleged that be left a will bequeathing the estate to his sister's son mudulal, the respondent no. 3. the original will is not forthcoming and, therefore the exact date of its execution is not known. but there is on record a certified copy of the statement of dw/6 hukamchand sharma, recorded in the court of the sub-divisional officer, bundi showing that the alleged will, exhibit d/2, was registered on 2.5.1946. mishrilal died on 8-10-1950 i.e., after the merger of the bundi state. on the strength of the will, he got his name mutated as the khatedar. the mutation proceedings were contested by the petitioner, who is the widow of mishrilal, right up to the board of revenue, but with no avail.3. thereafter, she brought the present suit-for possession under section 183 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955, claiming to be entitled to the lands as being the rightful heir alleging that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Mad353
1. defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 in o. s. no. 17 of 1965 on the file of the subordinate judge of coimbatore, are the appellants. the plaintiffs came to court for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties under the following circumstances. kandaswami gounder is the common ancestor. he had two sons, nanjappa gounder, the first defendant and palani gounder, the first plaintiff. his other son subba gounder died as a bachelor in 1959. palaniammal is his daughter. the first defendant, who is the eldest son who died pending suit is herein represented by his legal representatives, defendants 2 to 10. in fact, it is the second defendant who is contesting the action. plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughters of the first plaintiff. the fifth plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant. the plaintiffs' case is that kandaswami gounder died in adi 1955, prior to the hindu succession act of 1956 and that, therefore, palaniammal, the daughter of kandaswami gounder cannot be reckoned as a sharer to the estate of kandaswami gounder. the plaintiff's contention is that after the death of kandaswami gounder in 1955, the only person, entitled to share the estate of late kandaswami gounder was the 1st plaintiff and his branch, nanjappa gounder and his branch and subba gounder. subba gounder died in 1959. prior to his death, it is the case of the plaintiffs, that the family properties which were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-07-1977
Reported in : (1978)1MLJ305
ramaprasada rao, j.1. defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 in o.s. no. 17 of 1965 on the file of the subordinate judge of coimbatore, are the appellants. the plaintiffs came to court for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties under the following circumstances. kandaswami gounder is the common ancestor. he had two sons, nanjappa gounder the first defendant and palani gounder the first plaintiff. his other son subba gounder died as a bachelor in 1959. palaniammal is his daughter. the first defendant, who is the eldest son who died pending suit is herein represented by his legal representatives, defendants 2 to 10. in fact, it is the second defendant who is contesting the action. plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the sons and daughter of the first plaintiff. the fifth plaintiff is the wife of the first plaintiff and the 4th plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant. the plaintiffs' case is that kandaswami gounder died in adi 1955, prior to the hindu succession act of 1956 and that therefore, palaniammal, the daughter of kandaswami gounder cannot be reckoned as a sharer to the estate of kandaswami gounder. the plaintiffs contention is that after the death of kandaswami gounder in 1955, the only persons entitled to share the estate of late kandaswami gounder was the 1st plaintiff and his branch, nanjappa gounder and his branch and subba gounder. subba gounder died in 1959. prior to his death, it is the case of the plaintiffs, that the family properties .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-22-1977
Reported in : AIR1977HP85
r.s. pathak, c.j.the question referred for our consideration is:--whether, upon the facts of the present case, for the purpose of applying section 3 of the punjab occupancy tenants (vesting of proprietary rights) act, 1953, the court is precluded from, going behind the entry recorded in the revenue records showing hira and smt. devku as occupancy tenants and determining whetherapart from the entry they can be held to be occupancy tenants?2. on october 10, 1953 the plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of the learned subordinate judge, kulu for recovery of possession of agricultural land. it was alleged that the land originally belonged to one rai bhagwant singh, that he had granted tenancy rights therein to hira under lease deeds covering different parcels of land. consequent mutations were made in favour of hira. on feb. 26, 1942 hira died, and mutation entries were made in favour of his widow, smt. devku. hira and in her turn smt. devku, were recorded in the revenue records as occupancy tenants. rai bhagwant singh transferred his rights in the land to the plaintiff. on august 13, 1953, smt. devku transferred the rights belonging to her to the contesting defendants and put them in possession. the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that she had no right to do so. and he was entitled to recover possession from the defendants.3. the suit was resisted by the defendants who, besides the plea that hira, and after him smt. devku, were occupancy tenants, also asserted that with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC1638; (1977)2SCC246; 3SCR149; 39STC378(SC); 1977(9)LC268(SC)
p.n. bhagwati, j.1. the short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether green ginger falls within the category of goods described as 'vegetables, green or dried, commonly known as 'sabji, tarkari or sak' in item (6) of schedule 1 to the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941. if it is covered by this description, it would be exempt from sales tax imposed under the provisions of that act. the sales tax authorities held that green ginger is used to add flavour and taste to food and it is, therefore, not vegetable commonly known as 'sabji, tarkari or sak'. the orders of the sales tax authorities were challenged in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution and a single judge of the high court who heard the writ petition disagreed with the view taken by the sales tax authorities and held that green ginger is vegetable within the meaning of that expression as used in items (6) of the first schedule to the act. this view of the learned single judge was affirmed by a division bench of the high court on appeal under clause (15) of the letters patent. hence the present appeal by the state with special leave obtained from this court. 2. the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941 levies sales tax on the taxable turnover of a dealer computed in accordance with the provisions of that act. section sub-section (1) provides that no tax shall by payable under the act on the sale of goods specified in the first column of schedule i, subject to the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-18-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Kant128; 1977(1)KarLJ252
order1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india arises out of the proceedings initiated before the land tribunal, bijapur taluka (respondent no. 1) on an application made by bheemappa yallappa byadagi (respondent no. 2) under s. 45 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 hereinafter called 'the act', claiming registration of occupancy in respect of a land comprised in r. s. no. 215/2 measuring 16 acres and 12 guntas in shiddapur village of bijapur taluka.2. the petitioner is the land-holder. on the application of the second respondent claiming registration of occupancy, the tribunal issued notice to the petitioner. the petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land immediately prior to ist march 1974, which is the relevant date for determination of a dispute under section 45 of the act. the petitioner produced before the tribunal certified extracts of the record of rights and other documents. the tribunal examined the parties and also some witness on both sides and made an order on 18-2-1976 holding that the second respondent (applicant) is a tenant of the disputed land for the past 15 years and that he is entitled to the grant of registration of occupancy. aggrieved by the said order, the landholder has preferred this writ petition.3. it was urged by sri v.s. gunjal learned counsel for the tribunal is not a speaking order and that the tribunal has failed to give reasons for ignoring the presumption .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Kant170; ILR1977KAR556; 1977(1)KarLJ270
order1. this petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1973 passed by the ii additional district judge, dharwar, in h. r. c. appeal no. 71 of 1971 setting aside the order passed in h. r. c. no. 50 of 1968 by the additional munsiff, hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under ss. 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(f) of the karnataka rent control act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing c. t. s. no. 1858 in ward no. v of hubli and also bearing municipal h. d. m. c. no. 19. she has leased out the site to respondent 1 tukaram, since dead. his legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. tukaram had constructed a structure worth about rs. 400/- by 18-5-1964. on 18-5-1964, the petitioner and tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per ext. p-1.3. the petitioner filed an application under s. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the act contending that as per ext. p-1 tukaram had to erect a construction worth about rs. 600/- but had failed to erect such a construction and that tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of s. 21 (1) (a) of the act and lastly that tukaram had sub-let certain rooms in the building constructed by him on the land to respondents 2 and 3 as such was liable to be evicted under s. 21 (1) (f) of the act.4. sri. tukaram contended that he had leased out two rooms to respondents 2 and 3 and that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC949; 1977CriLJ767; (1977)2SCC238
orderv.r. krishna iyer, j.1. if survival after death may aptly describe any litigative phenomenon, the present review proceeding may well qualify for that quaint claim. the relief of review relates to the death penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the trial court, confirmed in appeal, and dismissed even at the stage of special leave by this court. in the ordinary course, judicial finality has thus been affixed on the capital sentence so awarded although presidential clemency, which has been sought and negatived, may still be open under article 72 of the constitution. mercy, like divinity, is amenable to unending exercise but in this mundane matter it is for the head of state to act and not for the apex court.2. sombre sentencing is the fifth act in the tragedy of a murder trial and, for the judges of the supreme court, assumes a grim seriousness and poignant gravity since the petitioner's final appeal for judicial commutation, if rejected, may perhaps prove imminently fatal to his life. even so, when we chronicle the events connected with the judicial proceedings in this court it will be realised that our review power has repeatedly been invoked in vain and naturally a further exercise of the same power must be justified by the compelling pressure of fresh circumstances within the limits of the law. the nature of the judicial process, even at the tallest tower, is such that, to use cardozo's elegant expressions, 'a judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free; he is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1978SC8; [1977(35)FLR353]; (1978)ILLJ1SC; (1977)4SCC415; 1SCR591; 1977(1)SLJ628(SC); 1977(9)LC673(SC)
p.k. goswami, j.1. this is a fight between a goliath and a dwarf in an industrial arena. the workman, who is the respondent before us, was automatically struck off the rolls' by the management (appellant) on august 24, 1965. the management has been persistently fighting him for the last twelve years having lost before the labour court, the single judge of the delhi high court and lastly before the division bench of the high court until the matter has landed in this court on certificate.2. the facts may briefly be stated3. the workman was recruited as a labourer in the store in 1951. after about six months he was promoted as a fitter-helper and after about one and a half years he was promoted to the post of motion-setter till 1964. on october 1, 1964, there was sortie reorganisation in the management's establishment and the post of motion-setter was abolished. ordinarily, therefore, the workman would have been retrenched, but, in terms of a settlement between the management and the representatives of the workmen, no employee was retrenched. on the other hand, the management agreed to offer work 'on any other suitable post.' it is in that way that the management offered to the workman the job of a trainee on probation for the post of assistant line-fixer (assistant grade i) without loss of wages. the management found him unsuitable for this post even after extending the period of probation upto nine months and, therefore, offered him the post of a fitter on the same pay which .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC2433; 1978CriLJ189; (1977)4SCC540; 1SCR781
p.k. goswami, j.1. the criminal case, out of which this appeal arises, goes back to the year 1961. on july 1, 1967, the special judicial magistrate punjab, camp jullundur, committed the appellant along with several others to stand trial in the court of sessions under various charges, such as under sections 465, 471/466, 476/466, 417, 419 read with section 120b ipc. apparently it took nearly three years for the trial to commence. on objection being raised by the accused with regard to the sanction under section 196a(2) cr. p. c, 1898, the trial court on june 6, 1970, rejected the same by holding that no sanction was necessary in the case. the trial court, however, held that the particular sanction accorded under section 196a(2) cr. p.c. was invalid, the correctness of which was not challenged before us.2.that led to a revision application by the accused before the high court of punjab and haryana. that was also rejected on march 24, 1972. the appellant obtained special leave against the order of the high court on april 5, 1973.3. even such a short matter, as it is, where no records are required to be prepared, has come up for hearing before us after well over four years. true, the accused profits by the delay in many ways but the state should have been vigilant to apply for an expeditious hearing of such a short matter since the trial has been inordinately delayed on account of this. the methodology of disposal of such a matter, like the pattern we have been recently adopting, .....Tag this Judgment!