Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-25-1992
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT190
..... . the recitals in the document considered by the madras high court in that decision were quite different. as found by the learned judges, the parties contemplated taking the advice of mediator in settling the details of the trust they desired to create and incorporating the same in a formal deed of trust. moreover, the learned judges observed:'the language of ex .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-09-1992
Reported in : AIR1992All235
order1. sri satyadeo lal, who is arrayed as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition filed, suit no. 32 of 1985 in the court of the civil judge, basti for partition of the disputed house and sehan inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant are the real brothers, they have inherited the disputed property after the death of their father and purchased the land jointly shown by letters d] [k] x] ?k] n- since there is a dispute between the two brothers regarding their shares, it has become necessary to get the property divided by metes and bounds. the suit was contested by mangal prasad, who filed a written statement and, inter alia, contended that the property has already been partitioned by metes and bounds in the year 1978 and a memo of partition has also been executed between the parties on 27-3-78. this alleged memo of partition embodying the factum of partition was filed on behalf of defendant mangal prasad in the suit. the plaintiff filed an application on 5-3-1986 saying that the said document which is alleged to be memo of partition is actually a deed of partition which is unregistered as well as insufficiently stamped, hence the document is liable to be impounded under o. 13 rule 8 of the code of civil procedure. the defendant mangal prasad objected to the said application and contended that the document is simply a memorandum of partition and not the partition deed and as such no stamp is required on the same nor the document required any registration. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-16-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Ori92
s.c. mohapatra, j.1. this civil revision arises out of a judgment under section 6 of the specific relief act.2. plaintiff filed the suit claiming that 'a'schedule property was under ownership and possession of one purna chandra bhukta of village maheswarpinda who had sold sale deed for a consideration of rs. 200/ and delivered possession thereof. while he was possessing the same after purchase by raising crops, defendants forcibly dispossessed him on 11-6-1983 and sowed paddy on it. plaintiffs protest remained unheaded and defendants threatened to assault him. plaintiff applied for mutation on 23-4-1988 but the same has been refused. accordingly, being dispossessed within six months, the suit isfiled for recovery of possession. 3. defendants in their joint written statement stated that suit land was in possession of purna chandra bhukta. however, the same was not sold to the plaintiff by purna. they denied assertion of possession by plaintiff since 1969. they claimed to be in possession of the suit land six years prior to 1988 when it was lying vacant as government land. mutation is also claimed to have rightly been refused.4. plaintiff examined five witnesses and produced certified copy of the sale deed as ext. 1. defendants examined three witnesses and produced two reports of the revenue supervisor in support of their case. on appreciation of these materials, trial court held that the case of the plaintiff that he is dispossessed within six months of the filing of the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-29-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Ori153; 74(1992)CLT463
p.c. misra, j.1. the defendant in o.s. no. 85 of 1980-1 of the court of additional subordinate judge, pud is the appellant in this appeal against the reversing judgment passed by the second addl. district judge, puri in title appeal no. 74/83 of 1983/82. the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the present appellant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from cutting and removing the trees standing thereon.2. the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no. 1 is a deity and plaintiff no, 2 is the head of the institution and marfatdar of the deity. the suit properties are said to be originally belonging to l. g. naronah who acquired the same by permanent lease on 5-1-1950 from one durga charan jagdevray and thereafter he sold the property to plaintiff no. 1 through plaintiff no. 2 as its marfatdar by a registered sale deed dated 18-10-1965 on receipt of proper consideration pursuant to which the plaintiff was put in possession and he has been possessing the same all through. the disputed plot according to the plaintiffs was a vast sandy area near the sea and was lying waste. after purchase plaintiff no. 2 claims to have reclaimed the said area by raising casuarina and cashew nut plantation as a result of which it became highly productive giving good profits. alternatively the plaintiffs have claimed that in the event it is found that the suit land does not appertain to their purchased area, they having been in possession thereof for more than the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Feb-27-1992
Reported in : 1992(I)OLR491
a. pasayat, j. 1. during pendency of this revision application filed by petitioners, eleven in number, an application under section, 391 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code') was filed for acceptance of additional evidence. a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party to the application.2. background facts in which the revision came to be filed before this court are to the following effect.the opposite party herein filed a complaint inter alia on the ground that his deceased father had purchased 62 decimals of land in plot no. 1403 of khata no. 204 in the year 1964 from one rama chandra naik, his father and after him, he was in peaceful possession of the same. in the year 1984 he had raised various varieties of paddy on the disputed land. on 21-11-1984 the accused persons cut and removed the unripe crop notwithstanding protest by the opposite party complainant.the accused persons took the plea that the disputed land was in cultivating possession of petitioners 1 and 3, who had raised crop in the year 1984. it was their case that since they had raised the crop they had cut and removed the same.the learned subdivisional judicial magistrate, banki (in short 'the sdjm') found that there was no material to sustain the plea that the removal of paddy was in furtherance of a bona fide claim of right to property. therefore, he found the petitioners guilty under section 379, indian penal code, 1860 (in short 'ipc') but acquitted them of the charges .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-03-1992
Reported in : 74(1992)CLT830; 1993CriLJ245
..... stated in the affidavit that there are 43 other cheating cases connected with the present case and therein attempt is being made to seize the relevant documents. of the two mediators, viz. prasad sundhi and sankarsan palti, prasad sundhi has been examined and sankarsan pati is yet to be examined since he is not available at koraput and is reported to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-1992
Reported in : AIR1993P& H95; (1993)103PLR81
orderg.r. majithia, j. 1. whether the court to whom a reference under section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894 has been made by the land acquisition collector for apportionment of compensation can add a person as a party who has not asked for a reference from the collector is the question referred to us for determination.2. the reference was necessitated because the learned single judge found that there was a conflict between single bench decisions of this court reported as beer singh v. union of india, 1988 (2) llr 413, on the one hand, and murti shree ram chander ji maharaj v. state of haryana, 1987 plj 131 : (air 1989 (noc) p&h; 133) and bagh singh v. the special land acquisition collector, district courts, jalandhar, 1984 (i) llr 59 : (air 1984 p&h; 177): 1984 plr 568.3. section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (the act, for brevity) provides an alternative remedy for the land acquisition collector for apportionment of compensation amount settled under s. 11 of the act in complicated cases. he may himself decide the question of apportionment and complete his award as required by s. 11 leaving it to the parties to bring a reference under s. 18 in case they feel dissatisfied with his award. if they accept the award, he would no doubt record the same as contemplated in s. 29, but if he experience any difficulty on the question of apportionment of compensation, he might act under s. 31 although he is not compelled to do so. a reference under s. 30 is in the nature of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Apr-01-1992
Reported in : AIR1992P& H219; (1992)102PLR75
order1. this revision petition is directed against the order of addl. district judge, kurukshetra, dated 18th of march, 1992, whereby the order passed by senior sub-judge, kurukshetra dated 10th of march,1992, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction over the suit land till the decision of the suit on merits. the trial court was directed by the appellate court to decide the case expeditiously not later than six months.2. in brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that chhajju ram plaintiff filed a suit against om prakash and other defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any type of construction over the suit land measuring 12 kanals 15 marias situated in village bir pipli district kurukshetra, on the averments that ram saran dass was owner in possession of the suit land, which, after his death was inherited by his widow smt. rameshwari devi and his daughters. smt. rekha, one of the heirs, sold her 1/6th share out of the suit land to the plaintiff vide, registered sale deed daled 28th of may, 1991 and as such the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit land. it was further pleaded that defendant nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant no. 3 halga patwari got the suit land partitioned by playing fraud upon the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file present suit for declaration that the mutation on the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-1992
Reported in : AIR1992P& H252; (1993)103PLR385
orderg.r. majithia, j. 1. this appeal isdirected against the decision of the sikh gurdwaras tribunal, punjab, chandigarh, dated april, 12, 1974, holding that the agricultural land measuring 475 bighas 19 biswas situate in village sanghera, patti sujja and the muafi of rs. 114/3/- belong to and vest in the institution known as 'dera baba dan dass', but the building situate in patti sujja of village sanghera, tehsil barnala, district sangrur is the property of the notified sikh gurdwara 'gurdwara sahib dera patti sujja' mentioned at serial no. 337 of schedule i of sikh gurudwaras act, 1925.2. facts first:--on the publication of a consolidated list under section 3(2) of the sikh gurdwaras act, 1925 (the act, for short), late mahant mela ram filed a petition under section 5 of the act claiming that the properties mentioned in the consolidated list and the building allegedly belonging to the gurdwara known as 'gurdwara sahib dera patti sujja' belong to and possessed by dera baba dan dass (for short, the dera). this petition was, in due course, forwarded by the state government to the sikh gurdwaras tribunal, punjab chandigarh (for short, the tribunal) for adjudication. in the petition under section 5(1), it was stated that the building allegedly belonging to the gurdwara sahib: dera patti sujja did not belong to the said gurdwara but is a building of the dera, which is an udasi dera of religious and charitable nature of which the appellant late mahant mela ram was the mahant; that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-10-1992
Reported in : (1992)102PLR107
n.k. kapoor, j.1. ishar singh, 'karbans kaur, jaswant kaur, rajbans kaur; tejinder singh, minor son, inderprit kaur and manpreet kaur, minor daughters of sukhdiai singh, husband of rajbans kaur; narain kaur and satwant kaur filed a suit against hardial singh and others for declaration to the effect that they are owners-in-possession of the land shown in sub-heads (a) and (b) as given in the plaint or in the alternative for possession of 6/7th share of the land measuring 41-ic 9-m comprised in hadbast khasras detailed as a b c d e (as per plaint) situated in the area of village kokari kalan, ajitwal and kokari hairan, tehsil moga, on the ground that a distance arose between ishar singh, defendant for the reason that the latter was cultivating the land as son of ishar singh and started claiming hostile possession whereupon ishar singh, instituted a suit against him the case of the plaintiffs further is that smt. attar kaur, wife of ishar singh died and hardial singh set up a will claiming ownership of the land left by her on the basis of the will which was the subject-matter of dispute between the parties. in fact, appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the mutation sanctioned in favour of hardial singh was accepted by the collector and thereafter at the behest of near relations a compromise-cum-family settlement was executed and put in the court in the aforesaid suit which was acted upon. as per the said document, ishar singh was given 260 mounds of grains also. this order of .....Tag this Judgment!