Patna Court July 2001 Judgments

Satan Hazra and ors. Vs. Dhorai Hazra and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Pathak, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of 1st appellate Court passed by Sub-Judge, 3rd, Bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1979. The defendants of Title Suit No. 168 of 1973 are the appellants before this Court. The title suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by a judgment passed by Munsif, 1st, Bhagalpur.2. The main plank of the admitted case of the parties was that there were two brothers, namely, Hingan Hazra and Gokhul Hazra and they were recorded over an area of 5.43 decimals. These two brothers separated. Hingan left behind four sons, namely, Manchan Hazra Baudhu Hazra, Kanchan Hazra and Jhumak Hazra. According to the plaintiffs case all the four sons of Hingan Hazra separated their property receiving from Hingan Hazra and each got 68 decimals. However, the defendant-appellants differed and their case was that although Kanchan and Jhumak separated, Manchan and Baudhu were remained joint. In course of time Gokhul sold his land me...

Naresh Mahraj and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

A.K. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Addl. P.P. The advocate on record representing Opp. Party No. 1 is not present but on his behalf Mr. Krishna Singh, Advocate appears and prays for adjournment which is refused.2. The present revision application has been directed against the order dated 11th June, 1998 passed by 11th Addl. Sessions Judge, Chapra who set aside the Order dated 17-2-97 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Case No. 26 of 1997 and directed for further inquiry in the case.3. Some of the relevant facts may be stated as hereunder:The complainant Opp. Party filed a complaint case against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners had filed a forged report of Sarpanch, Raj Ballabh Rai in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. relating to case No. M. 385/95 in the Court of S.D.O., Sonepur and obtained a favourable order on the basis of the said report. The case was sent to the file of Shri A.K. Srivastava for inquiry who by...

Sheo Manjhi and ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

B.N.P. Singh, J.1. Though the appellants were sent for trial for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on charges of committing murder of Hari Manjhi in furtherance of their common intention, they suffered conviction under Section 304, Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case as emerging from fardbeyan of Chaiti Devi PW 4 was that in the evening of 13th August, 1985 during a feast, that was being observed at the residence of deceased Baijnath Manjhi, a panchaiti was convened for induction of the appellants in the community which was strongly resisted by Sheo Manjhi. Altercation took place between appellants and the deceased Hari Manjhi, when appellants sharply reached to the suggestions made by the deceased to come under the common roof. If was alleged that shortly thereafter, Sheo Manjhi, Mahadeo Manjhi and Chanchal Manjhi caught hold of...

Mostt. Partibha Devi and ors. Vs. Smt. Anaro Kuer and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 117/72. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 165/65 filed this second appeal. The plaintiffs suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, on appeal by the defendant of the suit, the trial Court's judgment was reversed and, hence, this second appeal filed by the plaintiff of the suit.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant on the pleading that there was an agreement of sale executed by the defendant's father on 25-6-62. The agreement was for sale of 3 Katha 15 Dhurs of land for a consideration money of Rs. 750 of Plot No. 353. Out of the consideration money Rs. 150 was paid at the time of execution and Rs. 263 was the loan amount taken by the defendant on the basis of hand not dated 10-6-61. This amount was to be adjusted to the consideration money. However, in spite of several demands by th...

Mohammad Isha Vs. Gulab Prasad and ors.

Court: Patna

Ashok Kumar Verma, J.1. The defendant appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal against the order dated 24-5-1993 passed by the Additional District Judge VI, Siwan, in Title Appeal No. 57 of 1989, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has held that the appeal has abated as a whole and accordingly, he has dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs, who are respondents in this Misc. Appeal had filed Title Suit No 199 of 1982. The learned Additional Munsif had decreed the suit and directed the defendant to take Rs. 1,500/- from the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the order and to reconvey the disputed suit land to the plaintiffs. The defendant had preferred Title Appeal No. 57 of 1989 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsif, in the Court of District Judge, Siwan.2. According to the defendant-appellant, in Title Appeal No. 57 of 1989 notices were issued and the registered cover issued to opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Indu Devi was returned with a...

Dilsher Mian @ Dil Mohammad and ors. Vs. Manager and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court passed by Sri Prem Narayan Shukla, Sub-ordinate Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 197 of 1976. The plaintiff before this Court had filed title Suit No. 244 of 1966 which was dismissed by the 2nd Additional Munsif, Gopalganj by a judgment dated 12th July, 1976. Then the plaintiff filed the aforesaid appeal which was partly allowed and partly dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.2. The matrix of the case of the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court was that he was one of descendants of one Nayak Mian who left behind two sons Jhapas Mian and Moharram Mian. Moharram Mian died in the life time of his father. So on the death of Nayak, Jhapas alone inherited the property of Nayak and Nakchhed got nothing. Jhapas Mian left behind Ali Sher and Dil Mohammad who came in possession of their father's property. Ali Sher died leaving behind his wife Khatijan and his brother Dil Mohammad and his...

Subhadra Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 21-2-1998 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar by which he allowed the revision filed by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and rejected the petitioner's claim of having interests over an area of 543.27 acres of land which along with other lands were notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as 'protected forest.2. This case has a chequered history which goes back almost 50 years. The controversy relates to the petitioner's claim of raiyati interest over 543.27 acres of land which along with other tract were declared to be protected forest by a notification issued under Section 29 of the Act. It is important to bear in mind that the dispute relates to lands which were notified as protected forest and further that 'protected forest' and 'reserved forest' are two entirely different categories under the Act and the Act has different sets of p...

Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, North Eastern Railways V ...

Court: Patna

S.K. Katriar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1999, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Application No. OA-9700215 Kaushalya Devi v. Union of India, whereby the claim application of the claimants (the respondents herein) for compensation on account of the death of Ram Singar Singh has been allowed and compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of judgment has been allowed. The Union of India through the Indian Railways has preferred this appeal.2. One Ram Singar Singh had boarded 5203 Up during the night intervening 4.7.1996 and 5.7.1996 at Hajipur for a destination which is not clear from the records of the case. Soon after the train had started moving he fell down from the train due to the rush and push. He was taken to Siwan Hospital and ultimately to Patna where he died. The post-mortem was done on the body and inquest report was prepared on the date of the death itself. There...

Ramkali Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Naresh Prasad

Court: Patna

Someshwar Nath Patak, J.1. This second appeal was directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri Madan Mohan Choudhary, Sub ordinate Judge-I, Aurangabad in Title Appeal No. 32/78/30/84, The appellants before this Court were the defendants in title suit No. 86 of 1969 and the suit was filed by the respondents before this Court. The suit was dismissed and then, on appeal by the plaintiff-respondents, the appellate Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal by the defendants of the suit who were the respondents before the first appellate Court.2. Before I refer to the substantial question of law framed for decision of this appeal, it would be worthwhile to refer to certain relevant facts pleaded by the plaintiff-respondents as well as by the defendant-appellants before this Court. Plot Nos. 219 and 220 were the subject-matter of the suit and it was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondents that one Pachkali Kuer was the recorded tenure-holder of the aforesaid plots and one Basudeo Lal...

income-tax Officer Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Patna

Reported in: (2002)255ITR126(Pat.)

1. Shri Sohanlal Agarwal and Smt. Sharmila Devi of Dharan, Nepal, opened a joint account in the State Bank of India, Jogbani Branch, Jogbani, and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 in the said account during the financial year 1992-93 relevant to the assessment year 1993-94. The branch manager of the said bank passed on this information to the Assessing Officer when called upon to do so, under the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act"). Form No. QA22(1) was not filed by the depositors at the time of making the deposit in the aforesaid branch as contemplated by vol. I of the Foreign Exchange Control Manual, 1987. The Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the deposit was made out of earnings on Indian soil and assessed the said income under Section 144 of the said Act, treating the branch manager as an agent of the depositors under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 163 of the said Act.Hence, furnishing of information, in ...