Madhya Pradesh Court December 1957 Judgments
Smt. Sushilabai Vs. Govind Ganesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP372
1. This is an appeal against the grant of probate to the respondents in civil suit No. 10-A of 1955 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Khandwa. 2. The proceedings relate to the will of one Baburao Shastri who was retired District Excise Officer and had settled at Khandwa. The will is dated 31-3-1939. Baburao Shastri died on 21-4-1939 at Khandwa, leaving behind his widow Mst. Laxmibai (second wife), his mother Annapurnabai, and two daughters, Sushilabai and Kamalabai, through his first wife who had died long ago. By the will he left his estate to his widow Laxmibai as a full owner. She applied for grant of probate under the will in the year 1939 and the case was registered as civil suit No. 3 of 1939. A general citation was issued under Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and as none put in a caveat, probate was granted to her on 8-12-1939. 3. Laxmibai died in the year 1953 and is alleged to have left a will appointing the respondents as executors of her estate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanlal Onkardas Goyanka Vs. Suryadatta Govindlal and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP239
P.V. Dixit, J.1. This is defendant's appeal from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Mandsaur decreeing the claim of the plaintiff respondents Suryadatta and Bhupatrai for the refund of a part of the consideration money paid by them in respect of a contract for the sale of a ginning factory together with the land attached to it belonging to the defendants.2. The plaintiffs' case was that in December 1946, the defendants issued a notice (Ex. P/1) that their ginning factory, known as Laxmivillas Ginning Factory situated at Piplia together with lands attached to it and machinery, would be auctioned on 19-1-1946; that in response to this notice, the plaintiffs made an offer for purchasing the property for Rs. 47000/-; that the offer was accepted on 19-1-1946, and the plaintiffs paid Rs. 11000/- to the defendants as a part of the price by a draft on the Laxmi Bank Ltd., Akola.The plaintiffs further averred that it was agreed between the parties that the sale would be completed an...
Tag this Judgment!George Solomon Vs. competent Authority Under Madhya Pradesh Govt. Prem ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP330
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1957.2. The appellant George Soloman is occupying house No. 132 situate in North Civil Lines, Jabalpur, and Titus, the appellant in the connected appeal, resides in its out-houses. The premises formerly belonged to the Christian Missionary Society o Jabalpur, and the appellants were occupying them as its tenants. The State Government purchased the properly in June, 1946 and there-alter became the landlord.The competent authority, respondent No. 1, acting under the Madhya Pradesh Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1952, hereafter called the Act, issued notice to the appellants under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) for vacating the premises within One month of the receipt of the notice on the ground that they were in arrears of rent for 3 months. The appellants' appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur, respondent No. 2, was dismissed. They, therefore, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by two ...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Ganpat Pasu and Co. Vs. Gulzarilal Bhaiyalal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP409
ORDERT.C. Shrivastava, J.1. The only point which arises in this-petition for revision filed by the defendant is whether any part of the cause of action arose at KareliDistrict Narsinghpur, and the court there had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiffs reside in Kareli and defenr dant firm carries on business as commission agent at Bombay. It is not disputed that on 13-7-54, the plaintiff had sent 50 bags of Masur dal to be sold by the defendant as commission agent. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant firm has not properly accounted for the sales and is therefore liable to render accounts.3. The facts alleged in the plaint to bring. the suit within the jurisdiction of the Kareli Court as stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint are these. One Raojibhai residing at Kareli gave himself out as a partner and also as a representative of the firm of defendants and canvassed business for them. In July, 1954, Raoji proposed to the plaintiffs to appoint his firm as adhatias ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Deokaran Vs. Baldeo Jairam and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP367
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is second appeal by defendant No. 3 Sitaram against whom the plaintiff's suit has been decreed for Rs. 156/8/-. 2. The learned District Judge, Nimar (Khandwa), came to the conclusion that the appellant (defendant No. 3) must have instigated defendant No. 1, Jangoo, who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal, to give up the plaintiff's service. It has also been found that the appellant has been on inimical terms with the plaintiff. 3. The facts found are as follows : Defendant No. 1 Jangoo (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) entered into a contract with the plaintiff for taking a loan of Rs. 225/- and in lieu thereof executed a Naukrinama on 2-1-1948 to serve the plaintiff on a petty sum of Rs. 2/- per month till the repayment of the loan. In other words, he entered into a contract for serving the plaintiff on this meagre salary for a period of 112 months and a half. Defendant No. 1 Jangoo served the plaintiff for 2 years 1.0 months and 8 days, that is, he remained...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. A.K. JaIn and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP162; 1958CriLJ767
ORDER1. The order in this criminal revision shall also govern criminal revisions Nos. 14 to 17 of 1957 and criminal appeals Nos. 302 of 1956 and 107 of 1957, in so far as the tenability of the prosecutions are concerned under Sections 73 and 74 of the Mines Act (Act No. XXXV of 1952). This order will dispose of the criminal revisions completely because there the trials have yet to take place and the matter has come up before us on references by the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recommending that the prosecutions initiated on the basis of the alleged contraventions of the rules, regulations and bye-laws made under the Indian Mines Act, 1923 and deemed to have been made under the Mines Act, 1952, read with Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, be quashed.Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1956 and criminal appeal No. 107 of 1957 are appeals against) acquittals. The acquittals are based on a question of law similar to the one arising in the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vs. Gopal Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP347
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Small Cause Court of Shajapur, dismissing the execution application of the decree-holder as time-barred. 2. The facts of the case arc that the Judge, Small Cause Court, Shajapur, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 27-6-52. On 20-12-53, an execution application was filed before the Civil Judge, Second Class, Shajapur. It remained pending there till 7-5-54, when it was dismissed because the decree-holder did not file the address of the judgment-debtor and the process fee. After the dismissal of this execution by the Civil Judge, the decree-holder realised that since the decree was passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, his application for execution should have been presented before the Small Cause Court and not before the Civil Judge Second Class. After realising his mistake, on 5-12-55 the decree-holder filed an application for execution before the Small Cause Court, Shajapur. It is admitted that this app...
Tag this Judgment!Kashiram Kanaiyaram Vs. Lakhmichand Gangaram and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP407
ORDERA.H. Khan, J.1. This revision arises out of a small cause suit. The trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the defendant owed to the plaintiff the price of Gram he had purchased.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the trial Court should not have believed the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses because they belonged to the same community as the plaintiff. I disapprove of the line of argument which the learned Counsel has thought fit to adopt. He wants to condemn the witnesses on communal grounds and wants me to hold that the witnesses of the plaintiff, who is Vaishya, should not be believed because they too belong to the same community. The law does not recognise the impeachment of a witness on such grounds, and the argument is against the spirit of the Constitution of India.3. The trial Court having weighed the evidence has come to a conclusion and I do not think it proper case to interfere with it in revision.4...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors. Vs. Ghanshyamdas ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-13-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP148; [1958]9STC179(MP)
ORDERB.K. Choudhuri, J.1. This order shall also govern the disposal of L. P. A. No. 208 of 1956.2. These two appeals are against a common order made by Kotval J. in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 12 of 1955 and 437 of 1954. The appeals have been filed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, and the State of Madhya Pradesh against a common respondent Ghanshyamdas son of Chhotelal, Karta and Manager of the joint family firm Chhotelal Keshavram of Rajnandgaon.3. Shortly stated the facts are as follows : The respondent-firm, a registered dealer, was registered under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The business of the respondent is carried on at several places, including Rajnandgaon, and the year of accounting is from Diwali to Diwali. The two cases with which we are dealing arise from the years 1949-50 and 1950-51. As a registered dealer, according to the rules, the respondent-firm was required to submit its return of turnover to the...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalnarayan Ramsaranlal Vs. Ram Kishorelal and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1957
Reported in: AIR1958MP246
1. The appellant Kamalnarayan was the defendant in the Court below. The present suit was filed by the two respondents Ram-kishorelal and Ramamijlal for a declaration that the defendant Kamalnarayan had committedbreaches of a public trust in respect of a village called Telibandha, which it was alleged had been endowed to Shri Ramchandraji Deosthan, Dudadhari Math, Raipur, and for a further declaration that on account of those breaches the defendant Kamalnarayan had rendered himself liable to be removed from his post as sarbarakar or trustee of the said Deosthan, and for his removal. They also asked the Court to direct the defendant to render accounts of the said endowed Property from 1936 up to date and also for a direction that the sum which the defendant had received from the sale proceeds of the land situated at Telibandha amounting to Rs. 1,06,774-1-0 be deposited in Court. The plaintiffs also requested the Court that Ramkishorelal (plaintiff No. 1) be appointed sarbarakar in place ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »