Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3136
ORDERR.K. Patra, C.J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31-12-2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002 upholding the conviction and sentence under Sections 380/403/420/ 467/471, 1PC passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North) at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 184 of 2000.2. The case of the prosecution is, that the petitioner was a head peon in the office of Art and Culture, Government of Sikkim and in that capacity misappropriated stationeries worth Rs. 3,57,166.00 supplied by the Sikkim Consumer Co-operative Society to the Department of Art and Culture by presenting false supply orders to the said Co-operative Society.3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses and exhibits.4. The plea of the petitioner is one of denial.5. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned trial Judge found the petitioner guilty of the offences mentioned above and sentenced him t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT163
P.C. Agrawal, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Facts essential for decision are that Ramcharan, the respondent on 3-9-97 filed a civil suit for possession of 5 acres of land out of Khasra No. 362 area 10.28 acres situated at Village Andhiyari, Tehsil Gairat-ganj under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (to be called as'Act' only). This civil suit was contested by the appellants and was dismissed by the Trial Court. The respondent filed First Appeal No. 3-A/99 before ADJ, Begumganj, District Raisen who allowed the appeal and decreed that the appellants shall deliver possession of the suit land to the respondent.2. On second appeal being filed, following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:(i) Whether in view of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, first appeal was legally maintainable ?3. Section 6(3) of the Act reads as follows:--'No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(2001)DMC186; 2001(1)MPHT83
R.B. Dixit, J. 1. The short question involved in this appeal, is about status of illegitimate son in the self acquired property of deceased father.The facts found proved in the present case are as under:2. Deceased Sarua had kept as wife, deceased plaintiff Khema Bai, from whom, appellant was born. Khema Bai was residing separate from married wife of Sarua, from whom, defendant Barelal was born.3. During his life time, Sarua had partitioned his agricultural holding between himself and his son Barelal and appellant. The dispute arose between the parties after the death of Sarua regarding agricultural land, which fell to the share of deceased. Defendant/respondent No. 1 Barelal got mutation of the disputed land in his name after death of his father and also claimed it on the basis of 'will' Ex. D-1. However, appellant brought a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property challenging 'will' as fake and false and further claimed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1984MP136; 1985MPLJ20
G.G. Sohani, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for redemption - instituted by the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that Dhnnraj s/o Hceralal and Bhanwarlal s/o Keshrilal, who were related, owned two shops at Bhanpura that they mortgaged these shops by executing a - registered deed of mortgage on 27-1-1943 in favour of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to secure an advance of Rs. 2,000/- and delivered possession of the mortgaged property to the said defendants. It was furthere averred that Bhanwarlal, who was a Jain, died some time in the year 1949 leaving behind him his widow Nanibni and daughter's son Shantilal, defendant No. 4, who was adopted' by Nanibai. It was further averred that Nanibai died some time in the year 1903 and thus, defendant No. 4 Shantilal became the sole surviving legal representative of the property of deceased Bhanwarlal. As regards the other mortgagor Dhanraj, the plaintiff averred that Dhanraj died some time in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1984MP140
R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1974 passed by the learned District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 11-B Of 1972, arising out of' the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1972 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Jaora in Civil Suit No. 67B of 1968. 2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The plaintiffs Harishankar and pyarelal carried on business of liquor contractors under the firm name M/s. Harishankar Pyarelal and Company. The firm was granted a license to vend liquor from 1-4-1967 to 31-3-68 for the Mundlaram liquor shop. A licence fee of Rs; 8100/- was realized from the firm. According to the plaintiffs as per terms of the licence it was the duty of the defendant to supply the requisite quantity of liquor to the plaintiffs' shop from Jaora warehouse. The plaintiffs alleged that during the months of January, February and March 1968 the defendant failed to supply liquor according to the plaintiffs' demand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP137; 1962MPLJ185
T.C. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the Courts below.2. The following facts are not in dispute. The respondent Suratsingh sold Khasra Nos. 60, 65 and 66, area 2.06 acres, of village Banwar, Tahsil and District Damoh, to the appellant for Rs. 180/- by a registered sale deed, dated 26-10-1947. The appellant-plaintiff was placed in possession of the lands. In April, 1950, Nathusingh and Raghubar, claiming to be owners of the lands, dispossessed the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed a suit against them which was dismissed on 22-1-1955. It was held in that suit that the lands belonged to Nathusingh and Raghubar and that the respondent, who had sold them to the appellant, had no title over them. On 21-1-1958 the present suit was instituted for recovery of the amount of consideration of the sale deed.3. The suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds which it is not necessary to state for the purpose of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972MP209; 1972MPLJ91
R.J. Bhave, J.1. This appeal is by the tenants against the decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the decree of the trial Court for ejectment.2. The house in question, of which the defendants are the tenants, or subtenants, was purchased by the plaintiff-firm under a registered sale-deed dated 22-9-1959 from Mulla Mohsin Ali, resident of Bhopal. On the date of the purchase. Zawar Hussain (defendant No. 4) was in occupation of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/8/-. The plaintiff's case was that after the plaintiff-firm purchased the house, the lease in favour of the defendant No. 4 was determined by mutual settlement as a result of which the possession of the first floor of the house was given to the plaintiff-firm, while the premises in question, that is, the shop on the ground floor was leased out to the defendants 1 to 3 from 1-1-1960 at the instance of the defendant No. 4 on a monthly rent of Rs. 101/-. It is alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2002MP112; 2002(1)MPHT526
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against the order by which the defendant's appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r), CPC has been allowed and the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside.2. The lands in dispute belonged to Biran Singh Gond belonging to Scheduled Tribe. After his death these lands came into possession of his widow Shantibai. According to the plaintiff she was absolute owner of these lands; she bequeathed the same to the plaintiff who is son of her brother by her will dated 19-4-1992; she died on 16-8-1992 and the plaintiff came into possession of these lands on her death. On the other hand the defendants who are the reversioners of the husband of Shantibai claim that she was only a limited owner of the lands in dispute after the death of her husband; the Will on which the plaintiff is relying is forged and the defendants are in actual possession of the lands after the death of Shantibai.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1998MP289
V.K. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by the defendants/tenants who have been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 2-12-87 by Vth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 68-A/86, reversing the decree dt. 2-9-86 of IXth Civil Judge, Class II in Civil Suit No. 629-A/87..2. It is no longer in dispute that the plaintiff/respondent is the landlord of the suit premisesbearing house No. 327/2 and 327/3 Gorakhpur,Jabalpur. The defendants/appellants are tenantstherein on the monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Theplaintiff/respondent served a notice dt. 11 -8-81,which was amended, vide notice dt. 13-8-81 onthe defendants appellants for vacating the suitpremises. 3. The plaintiff/respondent averred that by virtue of deed of partition dt. 30-3-77 his father had partitioned the family property and in the said partition the suit premises had fallen in his share. Name of plaintiff/respondent also stands mutated in the Municipal records. It has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005MP199; 2005(2)MPHT439; 2005(2)MPLJ227
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This is defendants second appeal.2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that one Narain filed a suit against Mangilal who was the predecessors of defendants. That suit was registered as 97-B/68. In that suit Narain sought decree of money against Mangilal which was borrowed by him. That suit was decreed. For the realisation of the decretal amount, the suit land was attached and put to auction. On 12-7-1976 original plaintiff Narain being the highest bidder bought the land in auction sale for Rs. 6500/-. On 4-11-1976 a sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff in that regard and on 12-4-78 warrant of possession was issued and the possession was delivered to plaintiff on 16-4-1978. Thereafter, the name of original plaintiff Narain was also mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 19-12-1978. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that after having obtained possession through possession warrant on 16-4-1978, he started cultivating the land in question. On ...
Tag this Judgment!