Madhya Pradesh Court December 1971 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.
Nirmaladevi and ors. Vs. Smt. Anardevi and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1973MP120; 1972MPLJ512
Raina, J.1. This judgment will govern the connected First Appeals Nos. 15/71 16/71 and 17/71 which have been heard along with this appeal.2. The appellants in all these appeals are the legal representatives of the deceased Bal Bhimrao Shitole who had instituted four separate suits for preemption in the year 1968 out of which these appeals have arisen The right of pre-emption in each of these cases was claimed in respect of different parts of the same house which were sold on 15-3-65 by separate registered sale-deeds for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- in each case to different persons. The right of pre-emption was claimed under the Qua-noon Haqshafa Biyasat Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pre-emption Act') on the ground that passage to the house sold as well as to the house of the plaintiff was common.3. All these suits have been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Gwalior, on the ground that the right of pre-emption did not subsist after the repeal of Pre-empti...
R.C. Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ175MP; 1972MPLJ834
ORDERS.M.N. Raina, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the service of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and at present is posted as Inspector, Live Stock, Gwalior. On 31-12-1966 the State Government framed certain Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution for recruitment of the M.P. Veterinary (Gazetted) Service, vide Annexure 1. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for recruitment to service, by direct recruitment by selection, as well as by promotion. Rule 8 lays down the conditions of eligibility of direct recruits. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (i) of Rule 8 provides that permanent Government servants should not be more than 30 years of age. Sub-clause (ii) of the said clause on the other hand provides that temporary Government servants should not be more than 35 years of age. The contention of the petitioner is that this discrimination between the permanent and temporary Government servants in res...