Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(1)BomCR379
ORDERM.B. Shah, C.J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2. In our detailed Order dated 7th March, 1998 with regard to an unfortunate and painful situation which has arisen regarding administration of justice in Co-operative Courts and appointment of Judges of Co-operative Courts and Co-operative Appellate Courts in the State of Maharashtra, wehave directed the State of Maharashtra to take appropriate steps for appointment, posting, promotion, transfer, continuation or extension of Co-operative Court Judges so that the situation of lobbying the Executive and currying favour with the Government would not arise. The said order was required to be passed, because, despite the directions issued by this Court in the cases of (Maharashtra Co-operative Courts Bar Association, Bombay, & others v. State of Maharashtra & others, : 1990(3)BomCR437 , the State Government has not taken any steps in accordance with the said directions. Hence, following directions were issued:-'(a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.B. Deb, J. 1. The question pertaining to interpretation of the provision of Order XLI Rule 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is involved identically in both the cases and as such these are taken together for hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioners in both the cases challenged the order dated 10.7.2002, passed by the learned first appellate court in Cross-objection No. 21 of 2001 (arising out of Title Appeal No. 7 of 2001) and Cross-objection No. 22 of 2001 (arising out of Title Appeal No. 8 of 2001), by which the learned appellate court condoned the delay in filing the Cross-objections toy the defendant-respondents. 3. The petitioners of CRP No. 48 of 2002 filed a Civil Suit as plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 14 of 1999 seeking numerous reliefs. Likewise, the petitioners of CRP No. 49 of 2002 filed Title Suit No. 11 of 1999 seeking a good number of reliefs. The learned trial court decreed the suits in both the cases granting some reliefs to the plaintiff-petitioners while had refu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-9-1987 and decree dated 7-11-1987 passed by 3rd. Sub-judge. Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 24/83 reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 7-2-1983 passed in title suit No. 119/80/36/82. The defendants of the suit are the appellants here and they were respondents in the 1st appellate Court as well where they lost.2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents in the trial Court was that plot No. 921 under khata No. 3 was under the proprietorship of Sundarganj and Kunda estate. It was the Bakasta land of the ex-landlords. The aforesaid plot has a total area of 61 decimals. Sundarganj estate granted Hukumnama No. 115 dated 15-1-1941 on accepting Nazrana of Rs. 75/-. The landlord of Kunda estate also granted Hukumnama No. 215 dated 16-2-1938 on payment of Rs. 65/-. These Hukumnamas were executed in favour of Shyam Sundar Prasad, who came in possession and remained so till he sold the suit plot No. 921 includ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. This Second Appeal is direeted against the judgment and decree dt. 14-7-1978 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1978. By the impugned judgment and decree the learned lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dt. 27-1-78 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri, in Title Suit No. 169 of 1976. 2. The present appellants as plaintiffs filed the suit against the present respondents for declaration that the decree obtained in a previous Title Suit No. 736 of l969 in which the present appellants were not parties is inoperative. The appellants also prayed for a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest and joint possession over the suit land and also for permanent jnjunction. 3. Late Pasan Sk, the predecessor of the appellants and the pro forma defendants of the Title Suit was the owner of 30 Bighas and odd land which includes the suit land measuring about 20 Bighas and odd. It is all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
D. Biswas, Actg. C.J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1991.2. This Second Appeal was admitted for hearing by the order dated 17.12.1994 on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in the Memorandum of Appeal i.e., perversity committed by the learned first appellate Court based on surmises and conjectures without appreciation of evidence and violation of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC.3. Title Suit No. 46 of 1986 was filed by the appellants in the Court of Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar praying for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint and for preliminary and final decree for partition with decree for recovery of possession in respect of five patta land namely, Second R.S. Patta Nos. 42, 24, 41, 60 and 23.4. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit partly on contest against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
H.N. Sarma, J.1. The Title suit No. 3/1987 filed by the respondent having (Sic.) dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, was challenged in TA No. 6 of 1995 and the learned Appellate Court having allowed the appeal decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 25.4.1995, defendant has filed this Second Appeal.2. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned Counsel, for the defendant/appellant and Mr. M. Singh, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent.3. Although the appeal was admitted to be heard on as many as 6(six) substantial questions of law as per order dated 23.8.98, both the learned Counsels have agreed that intact only one substantial question of law which emerges in this appeal which would suffice for the disposal of this appeal, as framed below:1. Whether the learned court below was correct in law in decreeing the suit of plaintiff on the basis of Exb-1 i.e. Gift Deed dated 7.5.57 ?4. From the pleadings of the parties, the story that arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Awadhesh Kishore Prasad Singh, 2nd Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1981/21 of 1983, filed by respondents which was decreed against the defendant 1st set who are the appellants before this Court. On appeal being preferred by the defendant 1st, this was also dismissed by the 1st appellate Court, as stated above. Hence, this second appeal.2. In substance, the case of the plaintiff-respondents was for declaration that they had right of usar over survey Plot No. 511 as passage. The case of the defendant-appellant was that Plot No. 511 was under their title on purchase but however, this was recorded in revisional survey in the name of State of Bihar. Subsequently, this entry was challenged in the consolidation operation and this error was corrected. The right of easement claimed by the plaintiff-respondent was denied. The trial Court as also the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
P.K. Deb, J.1. All these four appeals have arisen out of the common judgment passed by both the Courts below. The appellate Court has reversed the dismissal of the suits as recorded by the Munsif, Motihari and decree has been granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The facts in all the four appeals are similar in nature which can be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff in all the suits is the same. Only the defendants were separate individuals. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was owned by his grand-father Lalita Prasad Choudhary who had three sons, namely, Satya Prasad Choudhary-defendant No. 3, Ganga Prasad Choudhary-defendant No. 2 from one wife while Rajendra Prasad Choudhary from another wife. Defendant No. 2 Ganga Prasad Choudhary has three sons, namely, Birendra Prasad Choudhary, Surendra Prasad Choudhary and Braj Kishore Prasad Choudhary-plaintiff. The holding in dispute, the description of which has been given in the schedules of the plaint, was said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Lahiri, J. 1. The sole point urged before us is that the appellate court has completely failed 'to consider' any of the grounds urged before it. 2. Mr. W. A. Shishak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was preferred against the iudff-ment passed in a title suit, the subject matter is a landed property worth several thousands. The appellant raised several substantial questions before the appellate court. However the court merely expressed the view that he had nothing to add as the court of the first instance had discussed all the issues and rendered an exhaustive judgment. 3. It is true that the trial court has exhaustively dealt with all the Issues and it is a laborious judgment and the views expressed are also sound but thefact remains that the appellant urged as many as 13 grounds in his Memo of Appeal, at least some were healthy and strong. But the appellate court did not even state in brief what were the grounds nor was there any discussion why they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
N. Pandey, J. 1. This petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the plaintiff is for review of the judgment dated 16th May, 1991 in Second Appeal No. 248 of 1985 whereby and whereunder a learned single Judge of this Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court as well as that of the learned Subordinate Judge, in Title Suit No. 56 of 1989. 2. The plaintiff claimed title on the basis of the purchase in the year 1963 from Duryodhan Khan who was a settlee of the property in suit. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Kamla Sundari Devi, wife of Duryodhan Khan was a benamidar of such property for her husband. On the other hand, the defendants had purchased the property from Hari Bala Dasi daughter of Kamla Sundari Devi some time in the year 1968. Admittedly, Kamla Sundari Dasi had only one daughter. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, while disposing of the title suit as well as the Additional District Judge by his final judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!