Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-24-2004
Reported in : AIR2004P& H245; (2004)137PLR471
satish kumar mittal, j.1. (24th february, 2004) - this regular second appeal has been filed by defendant no. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1980 passed by additional district judge, sangrur, vide which suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land in question was decreed.2. the dispute in this appeal is about the estate of one sajjan singh. the plaintiffs are the sons of uncle of the said sajjan singh. defendant no. 1 is the sister and defendants no. 2 and 3 are sons of another sister of sajjan singh. defendant no. 4 is the father of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs were claiming the property of sajjan singh on the basis of a will dated 30.12.1969, whereas defendants no. 1 to 3 claimed the said property on the basis of natural succession.3. the brief facts of the case are that there were two brothers chetan singh and narain singh. narain singh was having two sons, namely gajjan singh and sajjan singh and two daughters, namely dhan kaur and kaki. both the aforesaid brothers were having equal share in the land measuring 305 kanals 17 marlas situated in village sekhuwas. the dispute is about the half share owned by narain singh. the case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of narain singh prior to the year 1956, his half share was inherited by his two sons gajjan singh and sajjan singh. subsequently, gajjan singh also expired in the year 1953 i.e., much before the enforcement of the hindu succession act, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-24-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3381(SC); 2004(3)BLJR2219; [2005(1)JCR63(SC)]; JT2004(8)SC19; RLW2004(4)SC602; 2004(8)SCALE153; (2004)12SCC58; 2005(1)SLJ380(SC)
c.k. thakker, j.1. leave granted2. the present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated april 2, 2004 passed by the high court of judicature at patna in c.w.j.c. no.4106 of 2004. by the said order, the high court confirmed the order passed by the central administrative tribunal ('cat' for short) patna bench, patna on march 9, 2004 in original application no.307 of 1997.3. the case of the appellant herein is that she passed her matriculation examination from bihar school examination board, patna in 1983 in second division securing 531 marks out of 900 marks. she passed b.a. with honours from muzaffarpur in 1st division in 1988. in the year 1996, she got her name enrolled with the employment exchange. she was possessing agricultural land of 10 kathas having purchased from one dwarka prasad by a registered sale deed dated 1st march, 1995. she was also having a residential house in village khajuhathi. 4. according to the appellant, a post of extra departmental branch post master ('edbpm' for short), khajuhathi post office, block manjhi fell vacant as the edbpm, post office, khajuhathi got promotion. a notification was, therefore, issued for filling of the said vacancy and names of eligible candidates were called from regional employment exchange, chhapra vide a letter dated 14th october, 1996. according to the appellant, nine names were sent by the employment exchange. the appellant was found eligible, qualified and most suitable. accordingly, the appellant was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-02-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)ALD33; 2004(4)ALT698
p.s. narayana, j.1. heard sri nazeer khan representing the appellant and sri neelakanta reddy representing sri ravikiran rao the counsel representing the first respondent.2. the second appeal is preferred by the second defendant in the suit being aggrieved of the judgments and decrees made by the courts below. the first respondent in the second appeal, as plaintiff, instituted a suit o.s. no. 11 of 1983 on the file of district munsif, adilabad for declaration and recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to remove the huts specified and for costs of the suit,3. the court of first instance, after recording evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff proved his title to the suit property and hence he is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the suit. aggrieved by the same, the second defendant alone had preferred appeal since the first defendant did not contest the suit at all.4. the appeal preferred in a.s. no. 20 of 1989 on the file of district judge, adilabad was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1992 and aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is preferred.5. first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is shown only as a proforma party. the first defendant was set ex parte in the court of first instance itself6. sri nazeer khan, the learned counsel representing the appellant had stated that the plaint schedule property is within the municipal limits of adilabad town and when the respective pleadings of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-07-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)MPHT238; 2004(3)MPLJ412
orderk.k. lahoti, j.1. the petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 19-3-2004 passed by fourth civil judge class-1, katni in civil original suit no. 3-a/2001 by which the defendant's application under order vi rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the code') has been rejected.2. the trial court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that in the case plaintiffs have closed their evidence and the proposed amendment amounts to amend pleadings extensively. the proposed amendment has been sought to delay the proceedings and is not necessary for the just decision of the case.3. the learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. the petitioner is raising pleas which are necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. the suit is filed on the ground that the document in question is mortgage deed while there is no mortgage deed executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. in fact, it is sale-deed which was executed on 8-5-1972. the petitioner is raising plea in respect of factual position that the aforesaid sale deed was acted' upon between the parties and after execution of sale-deed on 8-5-1972, defendant/petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his own name. the tehsildar, katni invited objections in this regard and smt. kamla bai, grand mother of plaintiff no. 1, consented to the mutation. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-12-2004
Reported in : (2004)137PLR677
orderviney mittal, j.1. vide a notification dated march 27, 1979 published in the official gazette on april 27, 1979, land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas situated in village panj graian, district gurdaspur was acquired for a public purpose. the learned land acquisition collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of rs. 9900/- per acre. the claimant-landowner felt dissatisfied and claimed a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act. the matter was accordingly referred.2. during the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. a1though the landowner relied upon three sale deeds ex.a1 to ex.a3 but all the aforesaid sale deeds were ruled out of the consideration. while the sale deed ex.a2 was ruled out of the consideration because of the fact that the said sale took place much after the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the act, sale deeds ex.a1 and ex.a3 were ruled out of the consideration because of the fact that the claimant-landowner had failed to place on record the site plan showing the proximity of the land covered under the said sale deeds with the acquired land.3. on the other hand, the respondents has relied upon various mutations only. the learned reference court chose to place reliance upon mutation ex.r3 which pertained to a sale dated february 21, 1978. the average price of the land sold under the said sale deed was rs. 20,800/- per acre. on that basis the learned reference court further held that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-04-2004
Reported in : (2005)1GLR575
k.a. puj, j.1. the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for quashing and setting aside the circular dated 27.05.1992 issued by section officer, revenue department, state of gujarat, gandhinagar and consequentially praying for direction to the state officials to certify mutation entry no. 5100 in respect of the lands in question effected in favour of the petitioner.2. the petition was admitted on 18.10.1994 and interim relief was granted in terms of para 11 (b) whereby the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned circular was stayed by this court.3. it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and one smt. bhuriben nagarji desai had family relations and had mutual love and affection for each other's families. on account of such relations between the two families, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai had decided to include the name of the petitioner in the will executed by her on 18.05.1992. by the said will, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai gave lands bearing survey nos. 712/1 and 707/6 of village tukwada, tal. pardi, dist. bulsar to the petitioner. the said will was attested by witnesses as required by the provisions of the transfer of property act and the hindu succession act, 1956. it is also the case of the petitioner that after the execution of the said will, the said smt. bhuriben nagarji desai expired on 07.11.1993 at village tukwada, tal. pardi, dist. bulsar. it is also the case of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)JKJ285
nisar ahmad kakru, j.1. devolution of property left behind by the deceased siraj-ud-din upon his legal heirs, a widow and two daughters by dint of muslim personal law has become subject matter of a civil suit before the learned munsiff, billawar filed by widow because of alleged interference by one ghulam rasool, brother of the deceased who claims to be an executor appointed under the will, along side an application for interim relief under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of code of civil procedure was also laid which stands allowed by trial court vide its order dated 11.08.2001 placing a restraint on the defendant ghulam rasool against ouster of the plaintiff from the house, deceased used to dwell in, besides, land comprising survey no. 264 situated at village machheti tehsil billawar owned and possessed by the deceased. being aggrieved, the order was assailed by medium of a civil 1st miscellaneous appeal before the learned district judge, kathua, which was heard and decided by order dated 04.03.2004, fall out being, confirmation of the interim relief granted by the learned munsiff, resultantly, dismissal of appeal by order dated 04.03.2004, hence this revision petition.2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. being averse to interference with the impugned order on the strength of facts of the case, appearance of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is immaterial, accordingly, i proceed in her absentia which course is not impermissible because right .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-17-2004
Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR448; 2006(1)MhLj867
b.h. marlapalle, j.1. while admitting this second appeal by order 2 dated 3-2-1997 this court has framed the following substantial question of law for decision:'whether the deed dated 21-4-1953 (exhibit 62) is a deed of mortgage by way of conditional sale or a sale with condition of re-purchase?'2. regular civil suit no. 26 of 1986 came to be filed by the present respondents for redemption of the mortgaged land viz. gat no. 817 admeasuring 14 gunthas, gat no. 837 admeasuring 16 gunthas, gat no. 830 admeasuring 19 gunthas, gat no. 874 admeasuring 27 gunthas, of village jawle, taluka khandala in satara district. it was claimed that tukaram bala kadam, the late father of the plaintiffs had executed the deed of mortgage by conditional sale on 21-4-1953 in favour of shri madhavrao savlaram bhosale for consideration of rs. 700/-and it was agreed between the parties that on repayment of the said amount within ten years from the date of the deed, the purchaser would reconvey the suit land to the seller and such condition was embedded in another agreement signed on 2-5-1953. during the life time of tukaram, he had approached madhavrao for the return of land but in vain and in the mean while madhavrao had applied for effecting the mutation entries in his favour, which was opposed by tukaram vide his representations at exhibits 33 and 34. in the meanwhile the suit land was merged with the other holdings of madhavrao's joint family and it was subjected to partition amongst the family .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-23-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR775; 2004(5)BomCR607; (2004)106BOMLR579
f.i. rebello, j.1. the petitioner by the present petition challenge the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the land acquisition act under the provisions of the maharashtra project affected persons rehabilitation act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rehabilitation act') for resettlement of displaced persons of urmodi project in village atil, taluka and district satara. it is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of notice under section 4(1), objections were raised by filing reply and documents were also relied upon. the respondent after considering the objections raised and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was pleased to observe that out of gat no. 1243 only h 1 r 23 land be acquired and h 2 r 11 be dropped from acquisition. the case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the declaration dated 20th march, 1998 as it was published in daily aikya on 6th april, 1998. the said declaration also specified that the respondent-state has decided to invoke the urgency clause under section 17 of the land acquisition act. the case of the petitioner further is that the emergency clause could not be invoked without first issuing notice under section 9 of the land acquisition act. apart from that it. is contended that there is no urgency.2. the challenge to the notice under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 of the act is on the ground that the respondents, prior to issuance of the same, have not complied with the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-28-2004
Reported in : AIR2004AP167; 2004(2)ALD119; 2004(3)ALT802
ordera. gopal reddy, j.1. the point that falls for adjudication in both the writ petitions is common and they are disposed of by this common order.2. petitioners claim that one shaheen aziz ahmed was allotted a plot admeasuring ac.2.30 gts. in plot no. 10 of erstwhile jubilee hills municipality and from whom the petitioners' father-mr. v. malla reddy purchased the said property on 12-3-1358 fasli corresponding to the year 1948 and since from the date of purchase he is in continuous possession. when several bogus claims were made with regard to allotments by the erstwhile nizam government in jubilee hills area, the 1st respondent instituted an enquiry into such claims of allotment and after elaborate enquiry the 1st respondent through his memo no. 3933/02/64-17 dated 6-12-1967 held that 41 individuals who claim for assignment/allotment were held to be legal and valid, wherein the petitioners' father's vendor is at sl.no. 15 over an extent of ac.2.30 gts. in the annexure annexed to the said proceedings. it is stated that during the year 1979-80 the 1st and 2nd respondents published the town survey records of hyderabad city, wherein also the ownership and possession of v.malla reddy was recorded which was co-related to t.s.no. 4/ 2, ward no. 10, banjara hills. the same was reflected in the pahanies 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. on petitioners' father making application to the joint collector (3rd respondent) who conducted panchanama on 29-6-1984 and issued supplementary sethwar .....Tag this Judgment!