Madhya Pradesh Court October 1969 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.
Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter Vs. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970MP225
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. _2. The petitioner Gulla (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') filed a suit against the non-applicant Harisingh for recovery of a sum of Rs. 170 on account of the price of a bullock-cart supplied to him on 3-3-65. The non-applicant (defendant) denied the transaction and the trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit on the ground that the case of the plaintiff-applicant was not proved. Being aggrieved by this decision of the trial Court the plaintiff-applicant has filed this revision petition.3. In this case plaintiff Gulla (P. W. 1) testified that the non-applicant had purchased a bullock-cart from him on credit for Rs. 170 agreeing to pay the price a couple of months later, but he failed to do so in spite of demands. He is corroborated on this point by two witnesses namely, Chhidi (PW2) and Ratanlal (PW3). The trial Court found fault with this eviden...
Ramnarayan Dhan Singh Vs. Anandilal Ratanlal Mahajan and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970MP110; 1970MPLJ90
Shiv Dayal, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Newaskar, J., in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 76 of 1959, was referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Dixit, C. J. and Tare, J. The question which arises in this appeal is whether an order staying a process in an execution proceeding, or a 'partial stay', as it has been sometimes called, is within Section 15 of the Limitation Act and excludes the period during which it was in force. That question arose in the following circumstances, which have been stated to us by the learned counsel as undisputed. 2. On June 14, 1927, a money decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 62 of Samvat 1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Ujjain, (in the erstwhile Gwalior State), in favour of the predecessors-in-title of Kamnarayan appellant, who is now the decree-holder, against the predecessors-in-title of Chunnilal and Anandilal (respondents 3 and 4), now the judgment-debtors. Aggrieved by that decree, an, appeal was prefer...
Pandit Ramjilal Tiwari Vs. Shri Vijai Kumar and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1176; 1970MPLJ50
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This appeal by the defendant 2 is directed against a decree declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the disputed house, placing him in possession thereof and directing the defendant 2 to pay Rs. 720/- as damages for use and occupation of the house. The defendant 1 too has filed First Appeal No. 84 of 1968 against the decree so far as it relates to his eviction from the house. This judgment shall dispose of the two appeals.2. The material facts, which are not now in controversy, are these. The house in dispute belonged to the defendant 2, who executed in favour of the defendant 3 a sale deed dated 26th December 1959, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 8.000/-. By a sale deed dated 5th December 1962, the defendant 3 sold the house to the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000/-. On that date, the defendant 1 was in possession of the house.3. According to the plaintiff, he became by virtue of the sale deed dated 5th December 1962, the owner of the house, He claimed that he bona fi...
Jaykumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970MP119; 1969MPLJ931
A.P. Sen, J.1. This Is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decision of the IV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 16th February 1968, arising out of proceedings instituted by them under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, for the setting aside of an award.2. The relevant facts leading to the appeal are these. By an agreement dated 31st March 1965, the plaintiffs had covenanted to purchase from the defendant, his five storeyed building which was under construction at Napier Town, Jabalpur, for a sum of Rs. 1,55,103/- and in pursuance thereof, paid Rs. 10,101/-as part of the price. It stipulated that the defendant was to execute a sale deed within 4 months from the date of agreement, during which he was also to complete the construction work then in progress, e.g., installation of electricity for pumping of water to the upper floors, affixing of fittings and fixtures, distempering of walls and polishing of floors, etc. The transaction of sale was, however, never completed and disput...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›