Patna Court March 2011 Judgments
Gobind Mohan MishrA. Vs. State of Bihar, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1979 passed by Sri Lala Anjani Kumar Sinha, the learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 243 of 1967 dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants.2. The plaintiffs-appellants claimed the aforesaid relief on allegation that late Maharajadhiraja, Darbhanga was the owner of the suit property consisting of various municipal plots which is situated to the south east of tank known as Harahi tank and west of Darbhanga Railway Station. All the said plots have been amalgamated into one plot. Most of the plots forming the block previously were owned by different tenants under various Maliks of the Tauji. Subsequently, the Darbhanga Improvement Trust constituted under the Darbhanga Improvement Trust Act of 1934 under an Improv...
Tag this Judgment!Mostt.Prabha Devi. Vs. the State of Bihar.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
(1) The claimants have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.12.2001 passed by Sub Judge II, Gaya in Land Acquisition Case No.20 of 1993/1 of 1993.(2) It appears that the lands of the claimants measuring 10 decimals equal to 3 kathas were acquired by the State of Bihar. Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued on 01.12.1978. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.14,495. (3) The claimants-appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation of Rs.3 lacs at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per katha. According to the claimants, the acquired land is adjacent to Baijnath Mahadev Temple and is also near to Sri Vishnupad Mandir and is therefore, fit for residential purpose and there are buildings in both the sides of acquired land. It has got potential value and, therefore, the value of the land on the date of acquisition is not less than Rs.1 lakh per katha but very low amount of compensation has been...
Tag this Judgment!Janki Mahto, and ors. Vs. Archana Kumari, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
1. The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2007 passed by Sri O.S. Srivastava, the learned Sub Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Title Suit No.163 of 2004 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for partition.2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit claiming 1/4th share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule I & II of the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants are members of joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. Plaintiff No.1 Archana Kumari is legally wedded wife of Sooraj Deo Prasad, s/o Janki Mahto, the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is the minor daughter ofplaintiff No.1. The defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1. Defendnat No.1 had two sons, namely, Arvind Prasad, the defendant No.3 and Sooraj Deo Prasad. Defendant No.4 & 5 is sons of defendant No.3. The further case of the plaintiff is that her husband went to Bombay in December...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Mukund Ishwar. Vs. Ranjana Devi.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-30-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.03.2002 passed by the learned 6th Addl. District Judge, Begusarai in Matrimonial Case No.11 of 1999 dismissing the applicant's application under Hindu Marriage Act.2. The applicant-appellant filed an application praying for the reliefs that on adjudication, the Court be pleased to hold and declare that so called marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party alleged to have been solemnized in the year 1992 is null and void on the ground that both the spouse were minor in the year 1992 and the so called marriage was solemnized under duress, compulsion, threat and coercion. The plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid reliefs pleading that from perusal of the F.I.R., it was disclosed that Mostt. Kranti Devi w/o Late Ram Kripal Singh gave statement that her daughter, Ranjana Devi was married with the appellant in the year 1992. She also alleged that dowry was demanded and subsequently applicant married second time. The sai...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Murmu, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2003 by which the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura has taken cognizance under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case No. 723 of 2002. The petitioners are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister of petitioner no. 1.3. The allegation in the complaint petition is that there was a demand by the in laws for a pair of calf. It is said that the husband used to ill-treat the complainant. It is also alleged that the parents wanted to marry the petitioner no. 1 to another woman.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the allegations against the in laws are concerned, they are vague and not at all specific. It is further submitted that there was a proceeding under Section 107 between the petitioner no. 1 and the father of the complainant and her family members. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Devi, and anr. Vs. Panna Lal, and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-26-2011
1. The defendants have filed First Appeal No.333 of 2001 against the preliminary Judgment and Decree dated 01.06.2001 passed by Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Gaya in partition suit No.112 of 1999 / 169 of 1995 and likewise filed First Appeal No.61 of 2006 against the Judgment/Order dated 25.11.2005 and the final decree signed on 29.07.2005 by Sri Sushil Kumar Bharti, Subordinate Judge VI, Gaya in partition suit No.112 of 1999 / 169 of 1995. With the consent of the parties, these appeals are heard together as the parties are same, the subject matter is same and the Advocates are also same and the First Appeals arise out of preliminary decree and final decree and they are disposed of by this common Judgment.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the previously mentioned partition suit praying for partition of his 1/6th share from the suit properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. The plaintiff-respondent claimed the previously mentioned relief of partit...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Chandra Barot. Vs. the State of Bihar, and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. R.M.Doshit, CJ. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by one Chandra Barot, accused in Complaint Case No. 687(C) of 1996 filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.2. According to the complainant Satish Singh, the respondent no.2, the accused Chandra Barot approached the complainant between December, 1989 to March, 1990, presented himself as the proprietor of M/s Barot Films, assured him for the distribution rights for South Bihar of the film "BOSS", which was near completion and had thus induced the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. four lacs over a period of four months. The accused having received Rs. four lacs did not make the film "BOSS" nor did he hand over the print of the film "BOSS" as assured. Thus, the accused had committed offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons on the accused. Feeling aggrieved the accused has filed the present application under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Mumtaz Ahmad Qaisar and anr. Vs. Md. Mozahir Imam Plaintiff .
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
Mungeshwar The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the ex- Sahoo, J.parte judgment and decree dated 06.11.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda in title suit no.162 of 2004. (2) The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid title suit for specific performance of contract dated 21.07.2004 alleging that the defendants-appellants were in need of money so, they decided to sell the suit house. The negotiation was finalized on 05.04.2004 for Rs.2,10,000. On the said date, Rs.10,000 was paid and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 31st October, 2004 after receiving balance consideration amount. Subsequently, the defendants demanded money as they were in dire need and the plaintiff paid Rs.87,000 on 15.04.2004 through Draft No.371965. Again, the plaintiff paid Rs.12,000 through Demand Draft No.766290 on 16.04.2004 and again, the defendants took Rs.1,000 and Rs.10,000 against the grant of receipt. The plaintiff again paid Rs.75,000 thr...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Mumtaz Ahmad Qaisar, and anr. Vs. Md. Mozahir Imam Plaintiff .
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
(1) Mungeshwar The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the ex- Sahoo, J.parte judgment and decree dated 06.11.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Biharsharif, Nalanda in title suit no.162 of 2004. (2) The plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid title suit for specific performance of contract dated 21.07.2004 alleging that the defendants-appellants were in need of money so, they decided to sell the suit house. The negotiation was finalized on 05.04.2004 for Rs.2,10,000. On the said date, Rs.10,000 was paid and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 31st October, 2004 after receiving balance consideration amount. Subsequently, the defendants demanded money as they were in dire need and the plaintiff paid Rs.87,000 on 15.04.2004 through Draft No.371965. Again, the plaintiff paid Rs.12,000 through Demand Draft No.766290 on 16.04.2004 and again, the defendants took Rs.1,000 and Rs.10,000 against the grant of receipt. The plaintiff again paid Rs.75,000...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leela Devi and anr Vs. Bijay Prasad and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-09-2011
(1) Mungeshwar The defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Sahoo, J. judgment and decree dated 02.11.2007 passed by Sri Ranjan Kumar, Subordinate Judge III, Aurangabad in Pre-emption Suit No.226 of 2004/115 of 2004.(2) The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid pre-emption suit praying for a decree for transferring the suit land by the defendant no.2 in their favour and also prayed for restraining the defendants from transferring or making construction over the suit land. (3) The plaintiffs-respondents prayed the aforesaid relief on the facts that the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 had common ancestor Late Dargahi Sao and they constitute a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Dargahi Sao had three sons namely Mungeshwar Sao @ Mungeshwar Prasad, Bhagat Sao @ Bhagat Prasad and Rajaram Sao @ Rajaram Prasad. Mungeshwar Sao died in the year 1974 leaving behind his four sons. Out of them, Dwarika Prasad is plaintiff no.2. Bhagwat Prasad died in th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »