Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-20-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)ALT98
p.s. narayana, j. 1. heard sri c.r. pratap reddy, counsel representing the appellant and sri srinivas, counsel representing sri e.s. ramachandra murthy, counsel representing the respondents.2. the only substantial question of law which would arise for consideration in the present second appeal is as hereunder:whether the appellate court is justified in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial court having held that the will was executed by late seetamma, but on the ground that there is no proof of partition between seetamma and her sister andalamma and that an undivided share cannot be bequeathed by a will especially in the light of the provisions of section 30 of the hindu succession act, 1956, r/w. sections 59 and 63 of the indian succession act, 1925.3. the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff had taken this court thoroughly through the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate court and had explained that when both the branches are representing only late seetamma and having held that seetamma died testate, there is no question of the 1st respondent becoming a co-sharer or co-owner in the facts and circumstances of the case. the learned counsel also would maintain that the genuineness of the will is not in serious controversy and definitely it cannot be also especially in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below relating to the genuineness of the will as such. the learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-08-2004
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD149; 2004(5)ALT428
d.s.r. varma, j.1. the unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate court is the appellant and the respondents are the defendants.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.3. the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property, for permanent injunction, for grant of a decree to evict the defendants from the plaint schedule property and for delivery of the same and for damages. for the purpose of resolving the controversy, the second defendant is not a necessary party inasmuch as the first defendant-municipality is the contesting party and disputing the title of the plaintiff and also claiming title over the suit schedule property.4. the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, which was appealed against the same and the lower appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court after re-appreciating the entire material on record. eventually, the suit was dismissed. hence, the present second appeal.5. the plaint averments, in brief, are that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed on 21-7-1981 (ex.a-1) from one smt. poosarapu nooka ratnam. the predecessor-in-title of the said smt. nookaratnam was one venkata ramanamma. originally, one smt. poosarapu venkata ramanamma, w/o. viswanatham, purchased the suit schedule property from one palanki jaya rama rao, under a registered sale deed dated 26-12-1963 (ex.a-2). it is the further case of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-06-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3066
s.k. singh, j.1. by means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment of the deputy director of consolidation, settlement officer of consolidation and that of the consolidation officer dated 21.8.1975, 7.11.1974 and 24.9.1974 (annexures-10, 9 and 8 respectively).2. proceedings are under section 9a (2) of u.p.c.h. act. there appears to be no dispute about certain facts and therefore, for the purpose of disposal, the facts in brief will be useful to be summarised.3. the dispute was initially in respect to the land comprised in khata nos. 133, 132, 94 and 111 situated in village begahani, district allahabad. now it appears that the land of khata no. 111 is not in dispute and as submitted by the learned counsel the dispute is confined only in respect to the land comprised in khata no. 133 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of jag narain and buddhu and the land comprised in khata nos. 132 and 111 which was recorded in the basic year record in the name of jag narain, buddu and sat narain. for better understanding the pedigree which is admitted between the parties will also be useful to be reproduced here: sadho _____________________________________________|_____________________________________________ | | | parigan jagan nath sarvajeet | | | buddhu mahadeo satya narain jag narain (petitioner) (o.p. no. 7) ______________________________________________|____________________________________________ | | | raja ram ragho prasad mata .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3508
devi prasad singh, j.1. heard sri d. c. jain, holding brief of sri h. s. sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri p. l. mishra for opposite party no. 2. none present for opposite party no. 3.2. according to the learned counsel for the parties plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 entered into an agreement with one ram krishna giri on 15.12.1979 for sale of certain agricultural land. however, the land was purchased by the defendant/petitioners from ram krishna giri on 6.10.1981. accordingly a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2. the suit was decreed without effective service of notice on defendant, on 27.7.1982. the trial court while decreeing the suit directed for execution of sale deed in favour plaintiff by the decree dated 27.7.1982. defendant/petitioners filed application under order ix rule 13 of c.p.c. in september, 1982, for setting aside the ex parte decree and for decision on merit. the trial court had allowed the application by the judgment and order dated 27.5.1983 on payment of cost to the tune of rs. 25. the finding of the trial court is that a notice was affixed over the house of defendant/petitioners. at the time when the notice was affixed the defendant /petitioners were not available in the house and they were out of station. the report of process server states that the petitioners were out of station.3. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.1983, passed by the trial court plaintiff/opposite party .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-04-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1766
orderkamal kishore, j.1. this writ petition has been preferred for quashing the orders dated 10.12.1998 and 16.10.1999, passed by the then s.d.m., musafirkhana and additional commissioner, faizabad division, faizabad, which are annexures-3 and 4 respectively.2. i have heard arguments and have gone through the record.3. it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite-parties that the alternative remedies have already been availed of by the parties before the learned s.d.m. etc. in appeal, hence the present petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is not maintainable. on the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as alleged, that the alternative remedy in mutation orders is not barred by article 226 of the constitution of india. in support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling in puran singh v. board of revenue, u. p., allahabad and ors., 2004 (1) awc 853 : 2004 (22) lcd 494. this ruling is, however, not applicable to the facts of the case. in that ruling, the exception to the bar of the alternative remedy is mentioned :'exception has been categorized in cases where (i) the order is without jurisdiction, (ii) the rights and title already decided by competent court had been varied by mutation courts, and (iii) mutation directed not on basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed but after entering into debate of entitlement to succeed the property, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-20-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Jhar13; [2004(3)JCR316(Jhr)]
vishnudeo narayan, j.1. this appeal at the instance of appellant-defendant no. 1 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.1993 and 13.09.1993 respectively passed in title suit no. 282 of 1987 by shri azad chandra shekhar prasad singh, 6th subordinate judge, ranchi whereby and whereunder the said suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed directing defendant nos. 1 to 8 (i.e. appellant-defendant no. 1 and defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 9 here in this appeal) to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondent in respect of the suit land mentioned in the schedule at the foot of the plaint after taking balance amount of consideration from them.2. the plaintiffs-respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.1986 in respect of the suit land detailed in the schedule of the plaint directing the defendant nos. 1 to 8 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondent within a time to be fixed by the court failing which the said sale deed may be executed and registered by the court and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants for entering into in agreement with and/or disposing of the suit land either by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise to any other person.3. the case of the plaintiffs-respondent is that defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 9 (defendant no. 2 to 8 in the suit) are the owners of the suit land bearing r.s. plot .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-04-2004
Reported in : [2004(3)JCR561(Jhr)]
vikramaditya prasad, j. 1. the substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal preferred by defendant-appellant- appellants is :--whether in view of the fact that the deed of adoption was executed in the year 1950, a suit filed in the year 1981 was barred under the law of limitation. no liberty had been granted to raise another substantial questions of law but it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the questions to be answered are whether section 2 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act bars adoption by schedule tribes and whether the hindu succession act 1956 is applicable to the plaintiff who is a munda (a schedule tribe)?2. the question aforesaid arose out of the following short facts:--the plaintiff paku mundan (who was subsequently substituted by khaintu munda) was the daughter of ghuran munda. the pleading is that the plaintiff as also her ancestors were sufficiently hinduised and they were governed by hindu mitkashara law in the matters of succession and inheritance. the father of the plaintiff held and possessed lands under khata nos. 20 and 101 of village turidih. p.s. raidih of r.s. as his raiyati lands fully described in schedule 'b' of the plaint. he was also in possession over the same till he died in the year 1973 as the sole owner. the father of the plaintiff ghuran munda sold the lands of plot nos. 988, 990, 996 and 987 of khata no. 20 and plot nos. 269, 270 and 275 of khata no, 101 to bahira munda by a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-21-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)BLJR233; [2005(1)JCR369(Jhr)]
hari shankar prasad, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.1990 and decree signed on 23.6.1990 passed in title appeal no. 38 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd additional district judge, giridih allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 25.7.1987 decree signed on 5.8.1987 passed by munsif, giridih in title suit no. 122 of 1985.2. admitted case of the parties is that the plaintiff/ appellant purchased 5 decimals of land through two registered sale deeds executed in his favour by jahoor khan and the execution of sale deeds has not been denied by him. admittedly he inherits the property jointly with. yasin khan, his brother. after the death of their father. daimali khan and jahur khan sold out of 10 kathas, 5 katha of land through two sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. further admitted case of the parties is that both the brothers executed another sale deed in favour of defendant/respondent.3. the plaintiff/appellant filed a title suit no. 122 of 1987 with the reliefs to declare his right, title and possession and also for confirmation of his possession and if he is found to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, then for recovery of possession. defendant appeared in the suit and contested the suit stating therein that prior to execution of sale deed by jahur khan in favour of plaintiff/appellant, defendant had entered into an agreement with both the brothers and subsequently in pursuance of that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-19-2004
Reported in : 98(2004)CLT357
m.m. das, j.1. the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land, have preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court remanding the case to the trial court to decide the suit afresh.2. the appellant-plaintiffs filed title suit no. 43 of 1993 before the learned civil judge (junior division), sonepur for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land described as 'ata sadharana', plot no. 448/662 having an area of ac. 0.852 decimals in khata no. 94/23 of mouza baghia, p.s. tarava, under sonepur tahasil, in the district of sonepur.3. it is admitted case of the parties that one paramananda mishra being the owner of ac. 10.00 acres of land including plot no. 448 executed four sale deeds on 23.3.1981 in favour of the plaintiffs, the brother of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3, the defendant and the brother of the defendant, transferring equal parts marked 'a', 'b', 'c' and 'd' in the sketch maps attached to the respective sale deeds.4. it is case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the northern part of the said plot no. 448 marked 'a' in the sketch map and the defendant purchased southern part marked 'c' in the sketch map. in mutation cases filed by both the parties, the portion marked 'a' and numbered as plot no. 448/662 has been recorded in the name of the defendant and the defendant's purchased land numbered as 448/667 has been .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-21-2004
Reported in : (2004)137PLR312
hemant gupta, j.1. the defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent.2. the case of the plaintiff is that her father tola ram had three wives; namely ghanni bai, kishani bai and ram ditti. ghanni bai and kishani bai died issueless. plaintiff and defendants no. 5 lal chand are the children of tola ram from his third wife ram ditti. defendants no. 1 to 4 are the sons of defendant no. 5 lal chand. tola ram and his brother ganesha ram died at the time of partition of the country. in lieu of the land left by ganesha ram in pakistan, defendant no. 5 lal chand was allotted land in village kirawar being the legal heir of deceased ganesha ram. ganesha ram has died issueless. in lieu of the land owned by tola ram in pakistan, land was allotted in village bhurtana to ghanni bai widow of tola ram and defendant no. 5 lal chand in equal shares. after consolidation, the land was allotted to defendant no. 5 lal chand and deceased smt. ghanni bai. the land was jointly owned by ghanni bai and lal chand but lal chand, out of his greed, did not allow ghanni bai to reap the fruits of the land. she filed an application for partition of the land and started living separately. lal chand filed a civil suit no. 203 of 1958 seeking declaration that smt. ghanni bai was not the owner of the land. she had been given the land in lieu of maintenance and that she has no right to get .....Tag this Judgment!