Gujarat Court January 1963 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surendra Maneklal Kathia Vs. Bai Narmada Widow of Jethalal Khemchand a ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-31-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj239; 1963CriLJ369; (1963)0GLR833
V.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application is directed against an order of discharge of the accused who were charged under Section 420 read with Section 34, I. P. Code. The case against them was that the four opponents, who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused, entered into an agreement for the sale of a house, although at that time there was an injunction order of a Civil Court issued to them under which they were prohibited from selling the property. It was therefore contended that the complainant was deceived, as the fact of an injunction order was concealed from the complainant by the accused and that as a result of this deception the complainant gave Rs. 8,000/- to the accused. The learned Magistrate held that the accused were not bound to disclose to the complainant that there was an injunction order of a Civil Court. He, therefore, thought that the matter was one of a civil nature and therefore discharged the accused.2. In revision, it is contended that the order of dis...
Madhusudan Dahyabhai Vs. Manilal Harilal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj291; (1963)GLR1022
ORDERV.B. Raju, J. 1. What is challenged in this revision application is the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the appeal before it should be returned for presentation to the High Court and that the District Court is not competent to hear the appeal. 2. The suit was one for accounts, for the sum due after taking accounts and for an injunction to restrain the opponents from taking an objection to the petitioner taking part in a business, The suit was also for a declaration that a certain writing was illegal, void and not binding upon the petitioner. The suit was also for a declaration that whatever property was acquired from the income of business was a joint Hindu family property and for a permanent injunction to restrain the opponents from obstructing the petitioner from doing vahivat. The suit was also for a partition of property acquired from the income of the, business. The suit was valued at Rs. 205/- for the purpose of court-fees. The suit was originally filed in the C...
Navnitlal Gordhandas and ors. Vs. Keshavlal Maganlal and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj233; (1964)0GLR315
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises a short but interesting question of construction of certain provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). This extra-ordinary and unique enactment has often been, described as a patchwork legislation framed without any scientific accuracy of language and this case affords one more justification of the rich volume of judicial vituperation it has evoked from many Judges in the past. The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. There is a piece of land beaming Survey No. 223 situate in Navapura Falia of the Town of Kalol in the Panchmabals District. Prior to 1932, one Himatbhaiji held permanent leasehold rights in the land and he had constructed a small Kutcha shed on a part of the land. The petitioner having a money claim against Himatbhaiji and one Chuna Karson filed Suit No. 1189 of 1932 against them and the suit resulted in a decree in f...
Mehta Gunvantray Maganlal Vs. Bal Prabha Keshavji
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj242; (1964)0GLR188
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is an application by a husband. On a petition presented by his wife the marriage was annulled on the ground that the wife was impotent at the time of the marriage and subsequent thereto. Subsequently, the gave an application for permanent alimony, but the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Morvi, dismissed that application. In appeal, the learned Assistant Judge at Morvi allowed her appeal and ordered the payment of alimony at Rs. 50/- per month during her life time. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.2. Under the Hindu Marriage Act No. 25 of 1955, there can be proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights or for judicial separation; or for the dissolution of marriageby a decree of divorce, on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13, or for annulling a marriage by a decree of nullity on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12.3. Section 24 of the Act provides for maintenance pendente life. Section 25 provides for...
Bhachibai Alias Kunverbai Widow of Shah Thakershi Nenshi Vs. Sha Virji ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj241; (1963)0GLR1032
ORDERV.B. Raju, J.1. This revision application arises in the following circumstances:-- A particular document was admitted in evidence by the trial Court, and the contention in revision is that the trial Judge was wrong in admitting the document in evidence and that in holding that the document was admissible in evidence the learned Judge has misconstrued the document as a partition and not as a release.2. Where the Court admits a document or refuses to admit it in evidence, that matter cannot be the subject matter of revision under Section 115, C. P. Code. During the course of examination of witnesses, a Court has to give various rulings on the admissibility in evidence of the questions put and answers given. There cannot be a revision against every decision of the Judge allowing the questions to be put cr not allowing certain question to be put. When the Court allows a question to be put or reuses the question to be put, that would not amount to deciding a case. Similarly, when the C...
Patel Dahyabhai Mathurbhai Vs. Dolia Bhaishanker Pitamber and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj258; (1964)0GLR160
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Nadiad, dismissing an application filed by the original plaintiff, who was appellant before him, for joining the heirs of the deceased respondent No. 1 in the appeal before him. The prayer was that delay in filing the application may be condoned. That prayer was dismissed with costs by the learned; Extra Assistant Judge. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed.2. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the appeal does not He. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal; lies under Order 43, Rule 1(k) C. P. Code, which permits an appeal against an order under Rule 9 of. Order 22 refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit.3. We are not dealing with a suit but an: appeal, and it is contended that an appeal is a. continuation of a suit and therefore the word 'suit' in Order 43, Rule l(k), C. P. Code, includes an appeal. Reliance is also placed ...
Dahyabhai Thurbhai Patel Vs. Bhaishanker Pitamber (Deed.) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-25-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR160
V.B. Raju, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the learned Extra Assistant Judge Nadiad dismissing an application filed by the original plaintiff who was appellant before him for joining the heirs of the deceased respondent No. 1 in the appeal before him. The prayer wAs that delay in filing the application may be condoned. That prayer was dismissed with costs by the learned Extra Assistant Judge. It is against that order that this appeal has been filed.On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the appeal does not lie. The Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal lies under Order 43 Rule 1(k) C.P. Code which permits an appeal against an order under Rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set aside me abatement or dismissal of a suit.We are not dealing with a suit but an appeal and it is contended that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and therefore the word suit in Order 43 Rule 1(k) C.P. Code includes an appeal. Reliance is also placed on Order 22 Rule 11 C.P. ...
Mohomed Yusuf Vs. Jivkaj Premjibhai and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-24-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR1019
V.B. Raja, J.1. This revision application arises out of an order for the disposal of property namely a truck after the completion of a criminal trial passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Bansda and varied by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused for an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating and ordered that the truck in respect of which the offence was committed should be returned to the complainant although it was taken from the possession of a third party. That person therefore went in appeal to the Sessions Court and the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge ordered that the truck should be handed over to the third person from whose possession the truck was taken by the police and produced in the Court. The learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 I.P.Code and confirmed the conviction of the accused for cheating under Section 420 I.P.Code and the disposal of the ...
Chhotalal Dayalji Vs. Bailabhkunver Dahyabhai
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR710
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a second appeal by the original judgment-debtor. The respondent had obtained a decree in a suit for possession of the suit premises. The decree was a consent decree and provided that the defendant should hand over the possession of the suit premises to his landlord, the plaintiff, by 11-7-61 if he failed to pay Rs. 129/-and odd as arrears of rent before 11-7-61. The original plaintiff then filed Darkhast No. 112 of 1961 for recovering possession of the suit premises and in that Darkhast proceeding there was a second compromise between the parties and the learned Judge in appeal refers to that compromise as a compromise adjusting the decree and amending the original decree accordingly. He observes that by the new amended decree the defendant agreed to pay arrears of rent and other dues and further agreed to vacate the suit premises on 11 -2-62. A further clause was added whereby the decree-holder agreed that the premises may not be got vacated if the defendant pa...
BahadurbhaidayabhaiamIn Vs. Ambalal Umeddas Shah and ors
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jan-21-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR681
J.M. Shelat, J.1. In and prior to 1888, S. No. 1535 of Dehgam belonged to one Shankar Kahandas. In 1888 Shankar mortgaged that survey number to one Vala Piru. Subsequently Vala Piru transferred the mortgage in favour of one Karamchand Dharamchand. Karamchand thereafter let out the land to the father of the petitioner. After the death of Karamchand his son Ambalal Karamchand continued the tenancy and the petitioners father continued to cultivate the land as a tenant. On the death of the petitioners father the petitioner continued in possession of the land as a tenant. Shankars heir one Shiva Bapu sold the land in 1945 to respondent No. 1 and one Ambalal Purshottamdas whose heirs and legal representatives are respondents 2 to 7. After the aforesaid purchase respondent No. 1 and Ambalal Purshottamdas filed on March 29 1945 a suit for redemption and possession being suit No. 188 against Ambalal Karamchand. A decree for redemption and possession was passed on November 22 1951 Thereafter res...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »