Guwahati Court July 1985 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.
Laisram Aber Singh Vs. Smt. Yumnam Ningol Khangembam, Ongbi Tingong De ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-22-1985
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This plaintiff's second appeal is from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Manipur allowing the appeal of the defendant and dismissing the plaintiff's suit. 2. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 22 of1976 for declaration of his title to the suit land measuring 2 (two) Sangams of agricultural land under Patta No. 64/1213 (N) B.T. on purchase from the defendant-respondent at a consideration of Rs. 1000/-by a registered sale deed dt. 12-5-71' with delivery of possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his rightful possession thereof. He averred that since the purchase he had been in possession of the suit land paying its land revenue and he applied for mutation which was refused on objection by the defendant who thus asserted hostile title and interfered with his possession. 3. The defendant in her written statement denied the averments of the plaintiff that she sold the land with delivery of possessi...
Smt. Wangkhem Ningol Pheiroijam Ongbi Nupimacha Devi and ors. Vs. Kshe ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C. and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is from the order of the Subordinate Judge (II) of Manipur at Imphal dated 15-4-85 affirming the order dated 11-2-85, making the injunction order absolute. 2. In Original Suit No. 9 of 1985, the plaintiff Kshtrimayum Kulla Singh, filed an application for an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendants/opposite parties, restraining them for dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land by way of execution of a decree or otherwise under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the C. P. C. and this application was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 26 of 1985. 3. By order dated 11-2-1985. the learned Subordinate Judge (II), Manipur, after perusing the plaint and the affidavits, found that prima facie case for injunction and for maintenance of status quo between the parties as on that date was made out and that delay would defeat the purpose of ...
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Vs. Sansita Kaibarta and ors., Etc.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Lahiri, Actg. C.J. 1. We propose to dispose of the appeals by a common Judgment as they stem from a common Award and involve common questions of law and facts.2. These appeals have been preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, against the award made by the District Judge-cum-Arbitrator, Gauhati, appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for short 'the Act', in Misc. (Arb.) Cases Nos. 95 - 123 of 1971. 3. The Relevant Facts Are As Follows : Lands owned by the Respondents were requisitioned on 30-6-1963 and possession was taken over on 11-9-1963. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of 'the Act' the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by his order No. RQ. 1684/70 dt. 23-2-1970 acquired the land. There is no dispute that the acquired lands were in a common field situated at Borjhar in Mouza Dakhin Rani within the Greater Gauhati Master Plan Area. Without making any endeavour to determine the compensation by agreement wit...
Md. Abdul Hai Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
K. Lahiri, A.C.J.1. This is an application purported to be under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other order or direction of like nature for quashing the judgment and order dt. 12-3-85 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. C. Das in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1984 as void.'2. Shortly put, the facts leading up to the present application are that the petitioner was tried and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, under Sections 354 and 456, I.P.C. in G. R. Case No. 1069/82. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence to the Court of Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. But the appeal was dismissed with modification of the sentence form R. I, for one year to R. I. to six months under Section 456 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1984 in this Court, which was posted for hearing on 12-3-85. Admittedly, none appeared for the parties. Learned single...
Prahlad Chandra Dey Vs. Assam Board of Revenue at Gauhati and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Lahiri, Actg. C.J. 1. Should a party to the appeal he penalised for the inaction, deliberate omission, negligence or misdemeanour of his lawyer? The answer obviously is in the negative, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 3 SCR 509 = AIR 1981 SC 1400; Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma v. Dhan Prakash, (1981) 4 SCC 574; Smt. Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC 41. 2. Shortly put the relevant facts necessary to answer the questions posed in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution are that a revenue appeal was taken by the petitioner to the Assam Board of Revenue, statutory Tribunal, which was registered as Case No. 176 RA(G) of 1982. The appeal was hung up for hearing on 20-10-82. The lawyer engaged by the appellant defaulted, and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for default. Learned lawyer appeared and explained the reasons in writing, under Clause 15 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulation, 1963, which was...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›