Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-18-2004
Reported in : (2004)2GLR1764
..... each of the sex workers which would include training programme, food bills, stipends etc. at the said meeting, it was resolved that the police would play the role of a mediator to get the deposit amounts belonging to the sex workers back from the landlords. however, no sex worker was ready to accept the said package. it is stated that, even .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : May-28-2004
Reported in : 2004CriLJ4341,II(2005)DMC607,2005(2)JKJ140
..... rs. 19,000/- from her parents for the accused.25. ishar dass is also a witness to heated discussions between the deceased and the accused in school premises and he mediated between them.26. p.w. angrez singh was zonal education officer, bani, to whom also the deceased made a complaint at his residence that the accused had been beating and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-10-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)MPHT64
s.l. kochar, j. 1. the appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15th march, 2001, delivered by the learned additional sessions judge, indore, in sessions trial no. 23/1999, thereby convicting him under section 302 of the ipc and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional ri for 2 years.2. briefly stated the prosecution case before the trial court was that on 9-11-1998 meharsingh (p.w. 8), lakhansingh (p.w. 9), ranveer (p.w. 10), deceased balveersingh and their companion lakhan came with their truck at indore. they stayed near the hotel (dhaba) of acquitted co-accused balram and cooked vegetable by their own. for the purposes of preparation of roti (chapati) they had given flour to balram for which they were required to pay 30 rupees as labour charges. when they received roti, the same were in burnt condition on which deceased balveersingh and his companions meharsingh (p.w. 8), lakhansingh (p.w. 9) and ranveer (p.w. 10) went to balram and complained about preparation of roti. on this complaint they entered into verbal quarrel during which balram abuses filthy to the witnesses and when deceased balveersingh objected filthy abuses, balram called his servants and other persons who all reached on the spot including the present appellant. deceased balveersingh was caught by some persons and appellant struck a blow by knife (chhura) which landed on the left side of the chest of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-15-2004
Reported in : (2005)140PLR269
m.m. aggarwal, j.1. this petition had been filed by amar singh son of ram lal, resident of village khatiwas, district bhiwani now represented by his legal representatives, for quashing orders dated 25.5.1988 (annexure p-2) of assistant collector first grade, 16.8.1988 (annexure p-3) of collector and 14.3.1989 (annexure p-4) of commissioner, hissar division and for declaring that land in dispute is under the ownership and possession of the petitioner and mutation no. 373 in favour of the gram panchayat respondent no. 4 is illegal.2. this petition had been filed by amar singh in a representative capacity on behalf of other share holders of pana kapooran village khatiwas. according to the petitioner, the land had been 40 kanals 8 marlas bearing khewat no. 77/78 as per jamabandi for the year 1980-81. the mutation of this land bearing no. 373 dated 12.7.1980 had been entered in favour of the gram panchayat which was against law and it had no effect on the rights and title of the petitioner and other shareholders of the village. one jage ram had earlier filed a suit which was dismissed on 3.3.1983. appeal filed by jage ram had been dismissed by the collector. that the land in dispute was owned by shareholders of village panna kapooran. this fact was duly recorded in jamabandi for the years 1946-47, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1980-81. it was never utilised for the benefit of the village community. it did not vest in the gram panchayat. it is a averred that mere sanction of mutation did .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-22-2004
Reported in : [2004(3)JCR657(Jhr)]
vishnudeo narayan, j. 1. this appeal at the instance of the defendant-appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 8.5.2002 passed in title appeal no. 61 of 1996 by shri r.g. singh nagesh, ist additional district judge, latehar whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in title suit no. 2 of 1994 were set aside and the appeal was allowed and the ease was remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision a further issues having been framed and allowing the party to adduce evidence on that issue only and after hearing the parties to decide the suit a fresh and also to appoint a survey knowing pleader commissioner for the measurement of suit plot no. 505.2. the plaintiffs-respondent have filed the said title suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the raiyats of the land mentioned in schedule-b of the plaint from which no other defendants have any concern and upon the said declaration and also of partition of the suit land exclusively allotting a separate takhta in favour of the plaintiffs therein. the suit land appertains to plot no. 505 of khata no. 3 having an area of 1-1/8 decimals out of 9 decimals situate in village- karkat, police station-latehar, district-palamau (now latehar).3. the case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that plot no. 505, appertaining to khata no. 3 having an area of 9 decimals stands recorded in the cadastral survey records of right in the name of gandauri mian, jumman mian, wazir mian and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Oct-01-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)BLJR586; [2005(1)JCR29(Jhr)]
hari shankar prasad, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd september, 1995 passed by district judge, sahebganj in probate case no. 2 of 1986/title suit no. 16a of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned court below granted probate in favour of petitioner-respondent. the appellant was objector-defendant in the aforesaid probate case cum title suit and respondent in this appeal is petitioner-plantiff.2. the fact of the case in brief is that petitioner-respondent filed a petition for grant of probate under section 276 of the indian succession act, stating therein that one sabitri sahuain, widow of late baijnath sah died issueless on 29.4.1985 and before her death she executed a will in favour of the petitioner-respondent. it is stated that at the time of execution of the will she was of sound mind and possessed a good health and executed the will on 14.3.1985 out of her free will in presence of witnesses. it is submitted that original will was unfortunately misplaced but the certified copy of that will is available. it is stated that petitioner-respondent is the maternal uncle's son of the testator and the properties mentioned in the said will have been bequeathed in the name of the petitioner-respondent. schedule a contains the description of the properties, which have been given by will and the amount of liability and other lawful deduction of the said testator is given in schedule b and, therefore, a paper was made by the petitioner-respondent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-26-2004
Reported in : (2005)139PLR106
hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby the suit for possession of land in respect of 3 kanals out of total land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas was dismissed while granting decree for possession in respect of 4 kanals 2 marlas.2. the plaintiff alleged that he is owner of land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas of land and the defendants have forcibly occupied the land of the plaintiff about four months back and thus sought decree of possession. the defendants controverted the allegations and pleaded that one charan singh has been in possession of the suit property for a period of more than 12 years who has acquired title by adverse possession being in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years. it was alleged that the defendants are in possession of the suit land under charan singh.3. on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-1. whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land in dispute? opp2. whether charan singh is a necessary party? if so, what effect? opd.3. whether charan singh has acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession? opd.4. relief.4. in evidence, the plaintiff/appellants have produced jamabandi exhibit p-2 wherein one gehna singh was owner of the land comprising in khasra no. 39/4 min (3 kanals), 39/5 min, 39/4 (2k-2m), 39/min (2k). charan singh was in possession as superior tenant and ajit singh and piara singh as inferior .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Nov-22-2004
Reported in : AIR2005P& H207; (2005)140PLR170
viney mittal, j.1. the plaintiffs have approached this court through the present regular second appeal. the challenge is to the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by them has been dismissed.2. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners in possession of land measuring 8 bighas 8 biswas 6 biswansis. the details of the land have been given in the plaint. they claimed that defendant nos. 1 and 2 bhajan singh and kirat singh should not dispossess them in execution of decree dated april 6, 1959 passed against defendant no. 3, lal singh.3. the plaintiffs claimed that bishan singh, their father, had purchased the land in dispute from the original owners through various sale deeds and came into possession of the same as owners on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. earlier, the present defendant nos. 1 and 2, namely, bhajan singh and kirat singh filed a suit on march 6, 1958 for possession of land measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas 3 biswansis against lal singh, who was arrayed as defendant no. 1 bishan singh father of the plaintiffs was arrayed as defendant no. 2 in the said suit. the said defendants filed the aforesaid earlier suit claiming that they were the owners of the aforesaid land on the basis of a sale deed dated may 3, 1951. lal singh the present defendant no. 3 (defendant no. 1 in the earlier suit) chose not to appear and was proceeded against ex parte in that suit. however, a written .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-28-2004
Reported in : (2005)3GLR1852
akshay h. mehta, j.1. these two petitions have been placed before us in view of the order passed by the learned single judge [coram : m r shah, j.] dated 11th august, 2004. by said order the learned judge has directed that these petitions be placed before the division bench since the controversy involved in these petitions is identical to the controversy that forms subject matter of special civil application no. 5742 of 1984, which is already referred to the division bench by the learned single judge [ coram : a n divecha, j. as he then was] by order dated 4th april, 1996. the reference has been made by the learned single judge by framing the question to be decided as under :-'can inordinate delay come in the way of authority acting under the bombay prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1947 in declaring some sale transaction to be invalid on the ground of contravention of the relevant provisions contained therein?the reference has been made in view of two conflicting decisions of this court on the same point. according to the reference there is conflict between decisions rendered in the case of koli nagjibhai varjan v. state of gujarat reported in 1992 (1) g.l.r. p.14 [coram : r.k. abichandani, j.] and in the case of ranchhodbhai lallubhai patel v. state of gujarat reported in 1984 (2) g.l.r. p.1255 [coram : s.b. majmudar, j.]. the view taken in ranchhodbhai lallubhai patel's case is that power for annulling a transaction in contravention of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ441
ordern.k. patil, j.1. the petitioners, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the land tribunal, hirekerur dated 13th april, 1989 in case no. klr/sk/vlr/24/hirekerur, had filed an appeal on the file of the additional land reforms appellate authority, haveri in lra no. 116 of 1989. when the matter was pending adjudication, in view of the amendment of the karnataka land reforms act, the constitution of the appellate authority was abolished and the parties were permitted to file a civil petition. accordingly, the petitioners filed civil petition no. 7802 of 1991 and the same is converted into the instant writ petition.2. the petitioners claiming to be tenants had filed form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of sy. no. 36/1 measuring 01 acre 08 guntas and the application filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the land tribunal on 7th february, 1977 and the land tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. assailing the said order, the state had preferred a writ petition in no. 2151 of 1981 before this court. this court, after hearing, allowed the writ petition filed by the state and set aside the order passed by the land tribunal dated 7th february, 1977 and remanded the matter for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. after remand, the matter was taken up for consideration by the land tribunal afresh. after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the tribunal has rejected the claim .....Tag this Judgment!