Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR415; 1998(3)BomCR680
orderb.h. marlapalle, j.1. one ukha hiralal mali was a tenant in respect of land admeasuring 5 hectares 13 ares located in gat no. 33/1, s. no, 21/2 of village lon, tq. amalner. district jalgaon and the original owner of the said land was shri zaverchand laxmichand. it appears that ukha hiralal mali entered into an agreement of sale with the present respondent in respect of the said land for a consideration of rs. 6,000/-. the tenant received the consideration and receipt to that effect as well as possession of the land by the vendee was issued. it is pertinent to note that the agreement of sale was registered and the possession of the subject land was handed over to respondent no. 1. ukha hiralal mali filed r.c.s. no. 96/71 before the civil judge (j.d.) amalner and claimed possession of the said land from respondent no. 1. the said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 20-12-1973. in the meanwhile, when the suit was pending certificate of ownership under section 32-g of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the tenancy act for short) came to be issued in favour of ukha hiralal on 11-6-1971. r.c.s. no. 96/71 was dismissed solely on the ground that the possession of respondent no. 1 was - protected under section 53-a of the transfer of property act. the plaintiff therefore, filed civil appeal no. 13/74 which was dismissed on 23-2-1977 and the order passed by the trial court was confirmed. 2. ukha hiralal mali died on 5-8-1980 and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1998
Reported in : 1998(5)BomCR848; (1999)1BOMLR564; 1999(1)MhLj178
ordert.k. chandrashekhara das, j.1. this application is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, satara in criminal revision application no. 66/87. the short facts relevant to the purpose of disposal of the case are as under.2. the first petitioner is a talathi and the second petitioner is a circle officer. a complaint has been filed by the respondent no. 1 against them before the judicial magistrate, first class, waduj in regular criminal complaint no. 142/86 that the petitioners have committed an offence under sections 167, 464, 466, 468, 420, 194 read with section 34 of the i.p.c., while discharging their duties. it is alleged that, white making the entries in the revenue record, they played defraud. firstly, the said complaint was dismissed under section 203 cr.p.c., on prima facie opinion formed by the magistrate that no sufficient ground was made out to proceed with the proceedings. that order has been challenged at the instance of the first respondent before the additional sessions judge, satara. on an elaborate order addl. sessions judge, satara came to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case made out and the dismissal order of the magistrate was set aside. it is in these circumstances, the applicant approached this court.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the sessions court ought not to have set aside the order of the magistrate as the complaint is not maintainable for want of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-04-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR377
orderr.m.s. khandeparkar, j.1. a short question that arises in the present petition for determination is whether on promulgation of survey, the inquiry under section 14 (3) of the goa, daman and diu land revenue code, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') in respect of a land in such village, town or city is barred2. the facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the range forest officer of canacona, sometimes in april, 1981 brought to the notice of the respondent no. 3 herein that though the department of forest is in possession of the land surveyed under no. 43 of maulinge of cotigao village of canacona taluka, which covers huge part of forest land, the same is shown in the survey records in the name of boruskar family of borus loliem and, therefore, the inquiry under section 14(3) of the code was necessary. pursuant to the said application, notice under section 14 (3) of the code was issued, to which the petitioners herein objected to by filing their written statement. when the matter came up for inquiry before the dy. collector and s.d.o. at quepem, the petitioners herein orally raised preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the authority to hear the matter on account of the fact that the survey of the village of maulinge of cotigao was already promulgated and, therefore, there was no question of holding any inquiry under section 14 (3) of the code. the dy. collector, on the ground that there is presumption available under section 105 of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-20-1998
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1834; 1998(3)KarLJ581
order1. the order dated 2-6-1997 is recalled.2. the matter was heard afresh at the instance of the parties.3. the petitioner herein questioned by way of an appeal no. 28 of 1995, before the joint director of land records, belgaum, the orders dated 10-11-1992 and 8-8-1994 and sought cancellation of the mutation entry 2693 pertaining to survey no. 166 of mannikeri village, bilagi taluk, bijapur district.4. the grievance was that the assistant director of the land records, jamkhandi had amalgamated survey nos. 166/1 and 166/2 and further sub-divided it as 166/1+2a and 166/1+2b. various grounds were raised by the petitioner herein against the order of the assistant director of land records. the first appeal under section 49(f) of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (hereinafter called the act of 1964) was filed before the joint director of land records, belgaum. the joint director of land records, belgaum as per annexure-b allowed the appeal and the subdivision measurement i.e., p.t. sheet, form nos. 4, 11 and h.f. xii prepared as per adlr.phs.bcc.sr. 608 of 1992-93 was cancelled.5. the respondents 4 and 5 herein challenged the order of the joint director of land records in appeal no. 300 of 1995 before the karnataka appellate tribunal, bangalore. the karnataka appellate tribunal, which heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the joint director of land records, who heard the appeal apl.sr. 28/94-95, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as an appeal against an .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-06-1998
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ199
order1. the petitioner by this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for reallotment of the sites in question and to reallot the sites in question in favour of the petitioner and to issue possession certificates to the petitioners and to cancel or withdraw the sites granted in favour of respondents 2 and 3. petitioner has further prayed for grant of such other reliefs as this hon'ble court deems fit.2. petitioner in the writ petition has stated that she has purchased a revenue site bearing no. 3 measuring 40' x 36' formed in sy. no. 15/2 of kathriguppa village under registered sale deed dated 10-4-1974 from her vendor smt. b.n. suguna for valuable consideration. she has asserted that from the date of purchase of aforementioned site, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site. petitioner's case is that her name was indicated in the revenue records. she has asserted that she had purchased the site in question with the sole intention of constructing a house. petitioner has further asserted that 1st respondent has acquired the land in sy. no. 15/2 of kathriguppa village including the site in question. she alleged that there were large number of revenue site holders similarly situated like petitioner who donot own any sites or houses and the 1st respondent in the larger interest of the site owners of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-1998
Reported in : 1999(5)KarLJ126
order1. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.2. this revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-8-1994 passed by the additional civil judge, kolar, in miscellaneous appeal no. 11 of 1994 from the judgment and order dated 4-2-1994 on i.a. i under order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the cpc in o.s. no. 60 of 1993, setting aside the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner and after setting aside the trial court's judgment, the lower appellate court rejected the application for temporary injunction. the trial court held the prime facie case to be in favour of the plaintiff as well as the balance of convenience to be in favour of the plaintiff-revision petitioner. but the lower appellate court on considering the matter held that there was no prima facie case for the plaintiff and he further found balance of convenience in favour of the defendant-appellant. the reason it has given is that the defendant 1 i.e., the respondent in the present revision claims to be a mortgagee in possession on the basis of mortgage-deed executed by narayana rao, son of ranoji rao. the lower appellate court opined that a person in possession as a mortgagee will be deprived of his possession if the in-junction is granted, but if injunction is refused then whosoever is in possession will continue to be in possession of the property. therefore, it opined that no irreparable loss is going to be caused to the plaintiff if .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-13-1998
Reported in : ILR1999KAR204; 1999(6)KarLJ330
order1. in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, petitioners who are mother and son have sought for quashing the order of respondent 2-additional district judge, dharwad dated june 21, 1995 in m,a. no. 320 of 1991, annexure-c is the order and annexure-d is the copy of the decree in appeal. in that appeal under section 3 of the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), respondents 3 and 4 challenged the correctness of the order of respondent 1-tahsildar, hubli taluk, hubli dated 28-5-1991 in wpa:cr-4 of 1990-91 purported to have been made in exercise of section 6 of the act, regranting 33-01 acres of land comprised in 5 survey numbers 519-a, 519-b, 520, 535/2-b and 536 of koliwadvillage in favour of narayana ramachandra patil, husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner and respondents 5 and 6.by the impugned order dated june 21, 1995 respondent 2 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of respondent 1 dated 28-5-1991 and further directed respondent 1 to regrant the land in question in favour of respondents 3 and 4. hence this petition.2. heard the learned counsel for the parties and also the learned government pleader.3. this case has a long history and in order to appreciate the rival contentions urged before me, i feel it desirable and necessary to narrate the said history in detail. -4. undisputably, land ad-measuring 33-01 acres comprised in 5 survey numbers of koliwad village is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-23-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD71; 1999(1)ALT199
1. these appeals are taken up for disposal together, as they arise out of the common judgment in os nos.301 of 1974 and 215 of 1979, respectively, on the file of the iv additional judge, city civil court, hyderabad, and the parties are the same in all the suits and a joint trial is held in all these suits. all the appeals are brought by the defendant. in all the appeals the premises bearing h.no.22-8-389-i and 2, situate at purani haveli, hyderabad, is the subject matter. the brief facts in each appeal are stated as under:ccca no. 149 of 1987:this appeal arises out of the judgment in os 301 of 1974, which is a suit for recovery of rs.37,820/- towards arrears of rent together with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit.2. the respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. she let out the premises to the appellant under a rental-deed dated 22-2-1971, on a monthly rent of rs.1100/-. the appellant, contrary to the term of the rental deed, sub-let the premises and has been collecting the rents. the appellant committeddefault in payment of rent and she has paid only rs.7,280/-. claiming an amount of rs.37,820/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 1971 to 1974, deducting the amounts paid the suit was brought. the appellant denied that the respondent was the owner of the suit premises. she also denied that the suit premises was let out by the respondent. it is the specific case of the appellant that the respondent, being money lender, has adopted a modus .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-24-1998
Reported in : 1999(3)ALD381; 1999(3)ALT375
order1. the order of the joint collector. ranga reddy district in file no.b4/l 1802/88, dated 4.4.1989, copy of which was served on the counsel for the revision petitioners on 15.4.1989, affirming the order of the mandal revenue officer, maheswaram in file no.a1/8477/ 71 and a1/m1/83, dated 2.1.1987 directing eviction of the revision petitioners from the land bearing sy.nos.236 and 237 admeasuring about 30 acres situated at sri nagar village of maheswaram mandal under section 32 of andhra pradesh (telangatia area) tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1950 (for short 'the act') is assailed in this revision petition.2. the facts giving rise to this revision petition- in brief are that :3. the land originally belonged to one amanagul venkata narayana rao. late bakaram rajaiah, father of the revision petitioners was the protected tenant thereof. his name was recorded in the final record of tenancy as protected tenant while that of a. venkata narayana rao as land holder. late bakaram rajaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land. on 6.2.1952, he entered into an agreement of sale with the land holder a. venkata narayana rao and eversince that day, he has been cultivating the same by paying the land revenue to the government and after bis death, the revision petitioners arc in possession and enjoyment. while so, a. venkata narayana rao entered into an agreemen of sale dated 6.2.1358 fasli with the respondent no, 1 gunde lakshmamina in respect of the disputed land as .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-24-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)ALD655; 1998(4)ALT676
1. the appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the vith additional judge, city civil court, hyderabad, in o.s.no. 1110/81, decreeing the suit in part.2. the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of a-schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of b-schedule property, and for damages for the use and illegal occupation of plaint-a schedule portion. the suit was decreed except for the relief of awarding damages. the facts, in brief, are as follows:3. the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. sharbati bai was married to one ganesh lal, who had four sons viz., brijmohan, shambudayal gupta, jagadish pershad and omprakash gupta.ganesh lal died in 1973 leaving his widow sharbati bai and his sons.4. sharbati bai and ganesh lal along with his four sons constituted hindu joint family. brijmohan, married 1st defendant. his son is the 2nd defendant. brijmohan predeceased his father. sharbati bai had originally purchased an old building in charkaman locality, hyderabad, through a registered sale deed dated 2-9-1960 from smt. gilli bai, her brother's wife. she thereafter, got demolished the old house and constructed mulgies on the ground floor arid residential portion on the 1st floor and one room on the 2nd floor. ganeshlal was earlier living in a rented house and after the purchase of the house the family moved into the house. .....Tag this Judgment!