Madhya Pradesh Court October 1958 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.
Shankerrao Laxman Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP128
P.K. Tare, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his claim by Sbri R. S. Agarwala, First Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 11-B of 1951 decided on 30-1-1954. 2. The appellant, a truck driver, while driving his truck on the Katni-Kymore-Jukehi road on 14-2-1949 at about 5 p. m. collided against a shunting train at a level crossing, which has no gates and no gateman. As a result of the accident, the truck was damaged and the appellant's legs were injured, incapacitating him for the rest of his life. He,therefore, claimed damages at Rs. 18,180/- as follows: Rs. 16,900/- Loss of income for 20 years atthe average rate of Rs. 67/8/-per month.Rs. 700/- hospital charges.Rs. 500/- mental worry and physical pain. The negligence, according to the appellant, consisted in driving the train at high speed in disregard of fie safety of the passers-by using the level crossing and in not having a gate or a gateman at the level crossing. 3. The respondent in d...
Padmalochan Jagatram Agharia Vs. Sm. Sulochana Padmalochan
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP245
P.K. Tare, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by Shri S. H. Pagare, Civil Judge Class I, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 138-A of 1951 decided on 28-2-1955, decreeing the respondent's claim for maintenance and dismissing the appellant's claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant has not filed an appeal against the decree dismissing the claim for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, in the present appeal we have to consider only the question of maintenance.2. The respondent, in her plaint, alleged that she was the legally married wife of the appellant. About three) years back (i.e. in the year 1947) the appellant married a second wife and later turned out the respondent in February, 1949. It was alleged that in February 1949 a caste Panchayat was called, when the appellant refused to allow the respondent to live with him, but agreed to pay Rs. 45/- per month as maintenance. In accordance with the Panchayat agreement, the appellant p...
Habib Miyan Vs. Mahemud Mir
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP221
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent is against the Judgment of Kotval J, in second appeal No. 371 of 1950 dated 16th March 1956 and with the leave of the learned Single Judge.2. The appellant filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage (Ext. P-1) executed on 14th December 1927. By that document a house was conditionally sold to the respondent and it was one of the terms in the document that within six years if the consideration was repaid the property would be reconveyed to the vendor. After the expiry of the six years' period, on 16th December 1933, the defendant-respondent served a notice upon the vendor saying that inasmuch as the stipulated condition of repurchase had been broken, the vendee had become full owner of the property and no right was outstanding in the vendor. As a result of this notice, it appears that parties negotiated further and on 1st February 1935 the vendee paid a further sum of Rs. 100/- to the vendor in lieu whereof the vendor relinquish...
Singhai Shrinandanlal Vs. Laxman Singh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP315
M. Hidayatullah, C.J.1. The judgment in this second appeal shall also govern the disposal of second appeals Nos. 966 of 1956 and 1015 of 1956. The other two appeals are appeals against a common judgment and decree.2. The case comes before us on a reference by one of us. The whole matter in dispute is referred to the Division Bench. Singhai Shrinandanlal (who was the defendant in the two suits) was proprietor and lambardar of mauzas Belai and Kirrawada in Khurai tahsil. On 29-7-1950 he orally created two brothers Laxmansingh and Durjansingh occupancy tenants of fields Nos. 688 and 691/1 of mauaa Belai on receipt of Rs. 625/-. The fields were recorded chhota ghas. The tenants applied to be recognised as tenants but the Board of Revenue by its order dated 18-8-1953 declined to do so.Laxmansingh and Durjansingh later purchased these same fields in an auction held by the State for Rs. 1230/- on 12-6-1951. They brought the suit for Rs. 1000/- including in their claim Rs. G25/- consideration,...
Mst. Duliyabai and ors. Vs. Vilayatali and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP271
P.K. Tare, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the dismissal of their suit by Shri S. Rafiullah, Additional District Judge, Chhindwara dated 30-12-1953 In Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1952. A separate finding was recorded leading to the judgment and decree which are the subject of this appeal. 2. It is necessary to reproduce the respondents' family tree for a proper appreciation of the facts. ZULFEKAR ALI KHAN | Mst. ... (wife) = K. B. All Raja Khan = Smt. Hasnoobi | | __________________________________________ | | | | | Umardarajali Khan Tahasin Ali Khan Vilayatalikhan | | | | Himayat Ali Khan | | _______________________ | | | | Atefat Ali Khan Matin Ali Khan | | ____________________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Mashia Ali Khan Ayadat Ali Khan Ashiq Ali Khan Aftab Ali Khan Mst. Anwar Begum.The said genealogical tree was admitted by the defendants. 3. Mst. Hasnoobi for self and as guardian of her minor sons Aahiq Ali, Aftab Ali and...
Tarachand Lakhmichand Chuhan Vs. Gopal Lachiramkumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP297
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. This is a petition to revise a decision of the Court of Small Causes of Ratlam dismissing the plaintiff applicant's suit for the recovery or Rs. 50/- together with interest thereon from the non-applicant Gopal.2. The facts of the case are that on 14-3-1950 Gopal borrowed Rs. 100/- from one Nandibai. The plaintiff Tarachand stood surety on that very date for the repayment of the amount by Gopal. The defendant Gopal made a repayment of Rs, 50/- to Nandibai. It is not known when this repayment was made. Thereafter Gopal did not pay anything to Nandibai, According to the plaintiff on 28-8-1956 he himselfpaid Rs. 50/- to Nandibai which Gopal had to pay to her and that, therefore, he was entitled to recover this amount from Gopal,The learned Judge of the lower Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the payment made by the plaintiff Tarachand to Nandibai on 28-8-1956 was not a rightful payment inasmuch as on that date Nandibai's claim against both the pri...
Shobha Param Kachhi and ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP125; 1959CriLJ476
B.K. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by six appellants: (1) Shobha s/o Parana, (2) Halkai s/o Bhure, (3) Bhagirath s/o Dallu (4) Girdhari s/o Nanhe, (5) Bhagirath s/o Pram and (6) Punna alias Puran Lodhi, against their conviction under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and their sentences to five years' rigorous imprisonment each, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh. This appeal arises from Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1957. 2. The dacoity is alleged to have been committed by these six appellants on the night of 11-10-1956 at the house of Bahrain {P.W. 1) at village Kanora in which cash, silver and gold ornaments were taken away. A report of the occurrence (Ex. P-1) was lodged on 12-10-1956. But it was in connection with investigation of another dacoity that took place on 17-12-1956 at the taparias for hutments) on the suburbs of village Piparia-Mishar that the police officers investigated this offence also and found that the dacoits were from village Kabirpur.On 22-12-1...
Chunnilal Onkarmal, a Joint Hindu Family, Firm and anr. Vs. Shree Vikr ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP316
ORDERV.R. Nevaskar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 171 of the Indore Companies Act, which is similar to the Indian Companies Act, 1913, for leave to continue the suit filed by the petitioners, the Joint Hindu Family Firm, Chunnilal Onkarmal and Chunnilal Onkarmal Ltd., against the State of Madhya Bharat, His Highness the Maharaja Sir Vikramsingh Rao of Kolahpur and the Vikram Sugar Mills Ltd., being the Company under liquidation2. The petition is opposed by the Liquidators as also by two of the creditors and debenture holders of the Company namely Govindram Saxsaria Trust and R. B. Seth Hira Lalji.3. In order to consider the question whether the leave sought for, should be granted or refused it is necessary to take into account a lew preliminary facts having a bearing on the question under consideration. It is also necessary to take into account the nature of the suit in respect of which the leave is sought.4. On 23-1-1950 Mr. P. P. Pandit, a creditor of Shri Vikram Sugar Mills ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›