Gujarat Court April 1963 Judgments
Firm of Amratlal Ravjibhai Vs. Firm of Pari Parshottamdas Harivallabha ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj253; (1964)0GLR369
Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of certain rules relating to summary suits in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules, 1961, made by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows: On 24th November 1962, the appellants filed Summary Suit No. 1317 of 1962 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, claiming to recover from the respondents a sum of Rs. 1,02,600/- together with interest and costs. The suit was filed as a summary suit under the procedure prescribed for summary suits by the Ahmedabad City Civil Court Rules. Two advocates were engaged by the appellants right from the date of the institution o the suit. The summons was served on the respondents on the same day on which the suit was instituted and on 3rd December 1962 the respondents filed their appearance and gave notice of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanbai Vallabhdas Bhatia Vs. Thacker Khetsi Mansanqh
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-27-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR432
V.B. Raju, J.1. This is a civil revision application by the original plaintiff who filed Civil Suit No. 266 of 1957 in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Anjar (Kutch) against his tenant for possession of the suit premises on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and on the ground that the tenant had committed breach of the terms of tenancy in regard to the payment of rent. The tenancy is in writing and the written lease is a Kabuliyat dated 28-6-55 which provided that the rent should be paid every month which became due and in case of breach of tenancy the right of the tenant would come to an end. The notice to quit was given on 15-7-57 and the suit was filed on 13-8-57. In the written statement the defendant admitted that he had not paid rent that he was in arrears of rent and that he had not paid rent because the landlord had not effected the necessary repairs to the suit premises. The first Court decreed the suit for possess...
Tag this Judgment!Mer Ranmal Veman Vs. Mer Vajshi Parbat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj280
V.B. Raju, J. 1. The question raised in this revision application is an important and difficult one. This application arises out of proceedings under the S. A. D. E. Act, which will hereinafter be inferred to as the Act. An application was filed for the adjustment of debts under Section 4 of the Act by three persons Mer Vajshi Parbat, Bhoja Parbat and Giga Parbat. The debt sought to be adjusted was shown as one of Rs. 50/-, but no other particulars of the debt were given in the Schedule attached to the application. In the application it was stated, that one Ranmal Veman was in possession of certain properties as mortgagee. The application was made against Ranmal Veman and others. It is contended in this application by the learned counsel for Ranmal Veman that even according to the case of the applicants they had no dealings with Ranmal Veman and that even according to the case of the original applicants Parbat Jetha, the father of the original applicants, had mortgaged his property to ...
Tag this Judgment!Khant Jadav Naja and anr. Vs. Patel Raja Kachra Rakholia and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Guj336; (1964)0GLR222
V.B. Raju, J.1. The Assistant Judge, Rajkot District, Gondai, thought that the additional issue, namely whether respondent No. 3 had a right to sell the property, was necessary. He, therefore, set aside the decree of trie trial Court and remanded the whole suit for re-trial. In the circumstances, the learned Judge should have followed the provisions of Order 41, Rule 25, and should not have remanded the suit. under Order 41, Rule 23, C. P. Code, which contemplates remand only when the suit is decided on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal.2. The order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Gondal, is therefore set aside and the issue framed by the learned Assistant Judge is referred to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 25, C. P. Code. The trial Court shall proceed to try such issue and shall return the evidence to the appellate Court, that is, to the District Court at Rajkot, together with its finding thereon and the reasons therefor. The appellate Judge, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Parubai Manilal BrahmIn and ors. Vs. Baldevdas Zaverbhai Tapodhan, Pow ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR563
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the original defendant to recover possession of certain premises situate at Palanpur. The premises consist of a Dela and since many years the original defendant was a tenant of the premises from the plaintiff at the contractual rent of Rs. 21/- per month. It appears that the original defendant fell in arrears of payment of rent sometime in 1955 and the plaintiff was therefore constrained to file a suit against the original defendant for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was numbered 90 of 1955. A consent decree was passed in the suit on 15th February 1956 fixing the standard rent of the premises at Rs. 18 month. Even after the determination of the standard rent by the consent decree the original defendant again fell in arrears of payment of rent and rent remained unpaid by the original defendant to the plaintiff from 1st May 1957. The plaintiff ultimately gave a notice to the original ...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Guj234a
Desai, C.J. (1) This special civil application raises important questions of law relating to the construction of some of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. There has been a divergence of opinion between the State Government on the one hand and the Central Government on the other, and divergent views have been held at different times. The petitioners are persons employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the Government of the State of Gujarat. Prior to the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956, they were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the existing State of Bombay. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the State of Gujarat, its agents and servants from implementing the resolution dated 1st April 1960,passed by the Government of the former State of Bombay where under an alteration had been made in the previous...
Tag this Judgment!Hirji Madha Vs. Nagji Kurji and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-18-1963
Reported in: (1964)5GLR289
M.R. Mody, J.1. This civil revision application raises an interesting question regarding the interpretation of Section 25(H) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 which is hereinafter referred to asthe Act.2. This matter relates to two pieces of land bearing survey Nos. 232 and 2 3/2 2 situate in the village Sarasia in Dhari Taluka of the Amreli District. This land belonged to one Purji the father of respondents I and 2 in this petition. On March 2, 1933 Purji executed a sale-deed in favour of one Dawood Vora the father of the third respondents in this petition whereby he conveyed these lands to the father of respondent No. 3. This sale deed was duly registered under the Indian Registration Act. Respondent No. 1 who gave evidence in this case deposed that till the year 1939 possession of the land sold to the father of the third respondent was not given to him and I am informed that this position as it obtained till that year has not been disputed by the parties.3. On May 8...
Tag this Judgment!Jaswantlal Linabhai Vs. Nichhabhai Vallabhbhai and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Guj283; (1964)0GLR161
Mody, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff front a Judgment and order of the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surat, dimissing a suit being Civil Suit No. 5 of 1957 filed by him in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Surat.2. To appreciate the points arising for determination in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts, The suit related to the properties of the family of one Vallabhabhai Khandubhai. Vallabhbhai Khandubhai had three sons and several grand children and great grand children. At oriel time this family was a joint and undivided Hindu Family. This family acquired diverse movable and immovable' properties and ventured upon several businesses in several commodities. The plaintiff is one of the great grand children of Vallabhbhai Khandubhai. On January 22, 1957, the plaintiff filed the abovementioned suit against his grand-father, his father, his uncles, his grand-uncles, cousins and others. At present we will merely describe this s...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalashanker Bhuleshanker Dave Vs. State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1963
Reported in: 1963CriLJ611
Divan, JJ.1-8. * * * * *9. In support of its case against accused No. 1, the prosecution led the evidence of Mr. J. C. Trivedi, Inquiry Officer; and the prosecution relied upon the two statements made by accused No. 1 before Mr. Trivedi. The first statement was made on February 9, 1952 and that statement is Ex. 43 on the record. The other statement was made on February 22, 1958 and that statement is Ex. 42 on the record. According to the prosecution, Ex. 42 contained certain statements of self-inculpatory nature and amounted to a confession on the part of accused No. 1. It was urged before us that Ex. 42 was made by accused No. 1 in the course of the inquiry conducted by Mr. J. C. Trivedi when the evidence was recorded on oath and. therefore, this statement, Ex. 42, was hit by the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. We will first deal with the legal aspect of this matter before considering the contents of Ex. 42. As is well known, Article 20(3) provides against te...
Tag this Judgment!Patanwadia Budhaji Bakorji and ors. Vs. Desai Shantilal Kishordas and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Apr-16-1963
Reported in: (1963)4GLR721
N.M. Miabhoy, J.1. There is no substance in this revision petition. The petitioner was originally the tenant and the opponent No 1 was originally the landlord. The premises demised were a piece of land on which the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner had erected a hut. The opponent No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadiad for possession of the open land under Section 13 sub-sec.(1) Clause (i) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereafter called the Act) on the ground that the opponent No. 1 required the land reasonably and bonafide for the erection of a new residential building. The suit was decreed on the 30th of June 1952. On 26th of October 1956 opponent No. 1 sold the suit land together with certain other premises to opponent No. 2 and in the document of sale opponent No. 1 also transferred his right to recover possession of the suit land under the decree dated 30th of June 1952. Thereafter on 17th of J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »