Patna Court May 1998 Judgments
Most. Deorani Kuar Vs. Bhuneshwar Singh and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 25.9.1997 passed by the Second Munsif, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 250 of 1995 whereby the Court below added opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 as co-plaintiffs in the said suit.2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 27.4.1995 executed by the plaintiff in favour of opposite party No. 3 is null void. The plaintiffs case was that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently filed the suit in the name of the plaintiff alleging that the she was limited owner of the suit property as her husband died before 1947. The plaintiff's case was that after getting knowledge of the filing of the suit she was preparing to take steps in the suit but in the meantime the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that they may be added in the category of the plaintiff on the apprehension that the plaintiff might g...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bilas Mahto and ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. In Execution of an eviction decree passed, against one Laxman Mahto, respondent No. 3 herein vide Execution Case No. 20 of 1986, delivery of possession was effected in favour of the decree holders-respondents 1 and 2 and the appellants herein thereafter claimed that they were also dispossessed from their property, which was not the subject matter of either the decree or the execution proceeding.2. Accordingly, an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25 of 1986. In the said proceeding the appellants claimed to have purchased the lands of plot No. 190 110 by a registered sale deed dated 6.7.1962 from the said Laxman Mahto.3. The learned Munsif, 1st Court, Darbhanga, on the basis of evidence brought on record came to a finding that the sale deed dated 6,7.1962 (Ext. 1) in their favour was farzi transaction. The said finding has been confirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment dated 11...
Tag this Judgment!Birbal Yadav Vs. Suchan Thakur and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This Civil revision application is directed against the order dated 22.2.1997 passed by the subordinate Judge. Madhepura, in Title Suit No. 55 of 1991 rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree for specific performance of contract between him and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit lands measuring 2 Bighas, 17 kathas and 4 dhoors. The plaintiff's case is that by virtue of an agreement dated 28.10.1988, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell and transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on consideration of Rs. 53,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 34,000/- was paid as advance and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The vendors-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement stating, inter aha, that the suit land had been sold to various persons. The plaintiff's case is th...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs. Prakash Kumar Sinha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed Title Suit No. 61 of 1978 against the defendants-respondents for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent, which was decreed.2. The defendant first party against the said eviction decree preferred Title Appeal No. 12 of 1987, whereas the defendants second party preferred Title Appeal No. 8 of 1987. Both the appeals were heard together and were allowed by the impugned judgment dated 29.7.1991.3. The trial Court's judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial Court where the question of valuation would be gone into and if the valuation fixed by the Court was found to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint would be returned and if not, the plaintiff would be asked by to pay ad-valorem Court fee. The evidence already led by the parties shall in that event, continue to be good evidence, but the parties would be permitted to lead further evidence on the question of title. The parties if so...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bihar Solex Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-1998
S.N. Jha, J. 1. The question of law raised for consideration is whether a suit or proceeding by a bank or financial institution can be transferred for trial by the company court in a winding-up proceeding in view of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short 'the Debts Recovery Act'). An anciliary question also is whether a bank or financial institution can be allowed to seek its remedy as a secured creditor independent of the winding-up proceeding.2. An application has been filed on behalf of the Industrial Investment Bank of India (IIBI) under Section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984, for the sale of the properties mentioned in the schedules and for certain interim orders. The State Bank of India also seeks recall of the order dated March 24, 1995, transferring Money Suit No. 43 of 1992 (State Bank of India v. Bihar Solex Pvt. Ltd.) from the court of the First Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad, for disp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›