Guwahati Court July 1984 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.
Rajkumar Sanahal Singh and ors. Vs. R.K. Khutasana Singh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
T.N. Singh, J. 1. The revisionists in this Court are aggrieved by the order of interim injunction passed in a suit filed by the respondents. The respondents, in their suit, impugned the decree obtained by the revisionists in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1963, passed by the Subordinate Judge II, Manipur, which was finally affirmed by this Court and it is submitted that the Supreme Court also affirmed this Court's decision. The revisionists complain that though they were impleaded, according to the plaintiffs, as defendants 1 to 7, they were not described property. Because, in the decree obtained by them they were described in a different manner. Accordingly, they did not enter appearance in the suit, but they filed an application to be added as a party in the injunction proceedings and the prayer was accepted and they were accordingly impleaded therein and heard.2. The plaintiffs' case, in short, is that the revisionists had obtained the decree by practising fraud on the Court and by not impl...
Bhawani Shankar Sharma Vs. on the Death of Jugal Kishore Garodia His H ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
T.S. Misra, C.J. 1. This revision filed by the plaintiff arises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question. The defendant was a tenant thereof at a monthly rental of Rs. 100/-, the tenancy commencing from the 15th day of every English calendar month and ending on the 14th day of the next month. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was very irregular in payment of rent of the said premises. He also made some unauthorised constructions by enclosing the front Verandah of the said premises and by making separate room therein. , The plaintiff also alleged that he bona fide required the said premises for his own use and occupation. He therefore served a notice of eviction dt. 7th Sept. 1964 on the defendant requiring him to vacate the said premises on the expiry of 14th Oct. 1964. That notice was served on the defendant on 17th Sept. 1964 but he did not comply with the same. Hence the suit for eviction was filed. The plaintiff alleged that the...
Dr. Mohini Kumar Saikia Vs. the President, S.D.O. (Civil) Governing Bo ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Lahiri, J. 1. This is an applicationunder Art. 226 of the Constitution directed against a telegraphic order dt. June 7, 1983 removing the petitioner Dr. M K. Saikia, Principal, Deb Raj College from the Secretaryship of the governing body of the College and nominating the Vice-Principal of the College ex-officio Secretary. The order was rendered by the Director of PublicInstruction, Assam, respondents 11 and 12 purporting to act under Rule 22 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. It may be stated that respondent No. 11 is Shri S. Bharati, Director of Public Instruction, Assam and respondent No. 12 is none but the said Director. We shall therefore refer respondent 11/12 while referring to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam. 2. The petitioner is a qualified and responsible person. He was appointed Principal of Debraj Roy College, Golaghat. By virtue of his office he was the ex-officio Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. He was holding a permanent post and ...
Haripada Datta Vs. Madhusudan Datta and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
1. Haripada Datta, plaintiff-petitioner has filed asuit in the court of Munsiff at Karimganj,' for a declaration that he has got eight annas share in the suit holding and for an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any portion of the land in question detailed and described in the schedule appended at the foot of the plaint and also for a decree for possession of his eight annas share in the said land. The facts set out in the plaint are these : 2. Debendra Chandra Dutta, the fatherof the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute. On his demise the plaintiff inherited his assets. At the time of the death of his father the plaintiff was a minor; hence his uncle Srish Chandra Datta looked after his education etc. The plaintiff left Karimganj to serve in different tea gardens as Manager. His step-brother Siba Prasanna Datta died on 16th May 1958. But prior to his death, he had relinquished his right, title and interest in the land in dispute in favour of the plainti...
Kalyanee and anr. Vs. Dr. Bhabani Charan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
T.S. Mishra, C.J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 22nd May, 1984 passed by the District Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1983 allowing the prayer of the Respondent No. 1 to amend the plaint. 2. The plaintiff, who is the Respondent No. 1 before me has filed a title suit No. 93 of 1971 in the court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1 at Gauhati seeking eviction of the defendants from the premises described in schedule 'A' appended to the plaint. The case has been resisted by the defendants on a variety of grounds and it appears that during the last 13 years the parties to the suit have reached this Court as also the Supreme Court in connection with this suit. That is how the suit has not so far been disposed of in the sense that the dispute is still being examined by the learned District Judge in an appeal arising out of the suit. But before the appeal could be disposed of finally an applica...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›