Umashankar Sharma Vs. Mansingh Narbarsingh and ors.

Umashankar Sharma vs Mansingh Narbarsingh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 24, 1992

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/503913

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/503913
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: K.K. Verma, J.
Decided On: Jan 24, 1992
Case Number: S.A. No. 406 of 1978
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 3B; Madhya Pradesh Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1984

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umashankar Sharma

Advocate J.P. Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

Mansingh Narbarsingh and ors.

Advocate K.B. Chaturvedi, Adv. for Respondent No. 1

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 3B; Madhya Pradesh Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1984
Reported In: 1992(0)MPLJ292

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. orderk.k. verma, j.1. counsel are heard on appellant's application dated 17-12-1991 purporting to be under order 1, rule 3b inserted in the code of civil procedure, 1908, by a madhya pradesh amendment act.2. the suit was the heading 'suit for declaration of title and possession of land.' in the relief clause the first relief was: 'delivery of possession of agricultural land.' at paragraph 2 of the instant application it has been averred that the appellant does not have any agricultural land except the lands in dispute and that no ceiling case is pending in respect of his lands and that the appellant has no information of any such proceedings. order 1, rule 3b runs as follows :'3b. conditions for entertainment of suits. - (1) . no suit or proceeding for, -(a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief; or(b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land with or without any other relief, shall be entertained by any court, unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under section 9 of the madhya pradesh ceiling on agricultural holdings act, 1960 (no. 20 of 1960) in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed under that act has impleaded the state of madhya pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants, as the case may be, to such suit or proceeding.(2) no court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the state government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant.explanation. - the expression 'suit or proceeding' used in this sub-rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, but shall not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding.'3. in the instant case clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3b is.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.K. Verma, J.

1. Counsel are heard on appellant's application dated 17-12-1991 purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 3B inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by a Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act.

2. The suit was the heading 'Suit for declaration of title and possession of land.' In the relief clause the first relief was: 'Delivery of possession of agricultural land.' At paragraph 2 of the instant application it has been averred that the appellant does not have any agricultural land except the lands in dispute and that no ceiling case is pending in respect of his lands and that the appellant has no information of any such proceedings. Order 1, Rule 3B runs as follows :

'3B. Conditions for entertainment of suits. - (1) . No suit or proceeding for, -

(a) declaration of title or any right over any agricultural land, with or without any other relief; or

(b) specific performance of any contract for transfer of any agricultural land with or without any other relief, shall be entertained by any Court, unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960) in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed under that Act has impleaded the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the defendants or non-applicants, as the case may be, to such suit or proceeding.

(2) No Court shall proceed with pending suit or proceeding referred to in sub-rule (1) unless, as soon as may be, the State Government is so impleaded as a defendant or non-applicant.

Explanation. - The expression 'suit or proceeding' used in this sub-rule shall include appeal, reference or revision, but shall not include any proceeding for or connected with execution of any decree or final order passed in such suit or proceeding.'

3. In the instant case clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3B is fulfilled. However, the averment in paragraph 2 of the application does not bring the case under the following provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1), Rule 3B :

'........Unless the plaintiff or applicant, as the case may be, knowing or having reason to believe that a return under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, in relation to land aforesaid has been or is required to be filed by him or by any other person before competent authority appointed under that Act.'

4. Shri Chaturvedi says that on his part he too does not have any material on the lines referred to in clause (b).

5. In the result, the application under Order 1, Rule 3B, Civil Procedure Code is not tenable .and is not at all necessary in this case. The application is dismissed.

6. The appeal will now be listed for final hearing after issuing S.P.C. to unrepresented respondents.

Certified copy to go to the parties by the next working days.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1992 Same Parties Umashankar Sharma vs Mansingh Narbarsingh and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge K.K. Verma, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 1, Rule 3B; Madh...

Civil