Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1987 and 6th January, 1988 respectively passed by Additional District Judge XIII, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 78 of 1979, reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 31st March 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1969. The defendants of the suit are the appellants before this Court. The suit of the plaintiff-respondents was dismissed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court reversed the same against which the defendants have preferred the aforesaid second appeal.2. The facts admitted by the pleadings of the parties are that there was one Plot No. 794 having a total area of 10 acres 5 decimals recorded in the names of three persons. The three recorded owners of this plot entered into partition and 1/3rd of the middle portion of the plot fell to the share of Srinaryan Singh and Bindeshwri Prasad Singh jointly after the Survey. Srinarayan Singh and Bindeshwri Singh also later effec...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
H.K.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned counsel for the respondents.2. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC is against the appellate judgment & order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.). Darang Mangaldoi in Misc. (A) No. 6/98 and Misc (J) No. 35/98. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Appellate Court set aside the order dated 28.5.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1 in Misc. (J) case No. 34/96 arising out of Title suit No. 50/96 and thereafter issued a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the Title Suit No. 50/96. The Title Suit was brought by the respondents herein as plaintiffs for declaration of title and injunction in respect or the Suit land described at the plaint the Schedule-C. The case of the plaintiffs is that they inherited the suit land from their forefathers and they are in possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.M.M. Alam, J.1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 5.2.2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2001/12 of 2001 whereby he has been pleased to remand the entire suit for fresh decision without giving any finding on any issues discussed by the trial court.2. The learned Advocate of the appellant while challenging the impugned judgment submitted that the said order of the appellate court is illegal. The learned Advocate submitted that in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'C.P.C.') there are three provisions contemplating remand by the court of appeal. The said provisions are contained under Rules 23, 23A and 25 of Order XLI of C.P.C. and since the order of remand is not in accordance with the provisions contained under the abovementioned rules, as such the same is bad in law and must be set aside. The learned Advocate further submitted that by the impugned judgment, the suit was rem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the first appellate Court passed by Sri Narayan Gupta, Additional District Judge-VI, Munger in Title Appeal No. 24 of 1982. The plaintiff of Title Mortgage Suit No. 51 of 1979 is the appellant here.2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed the aforesaid title suit seeking foreclosure of the mortgage-deed dated 6th February, 1974. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that the defendant of the suit (respondent) had taken a loan of Rs. 5,000/- and a mortgage with conditional sale was executed on 6th February, 1974. It was stipulated in the mortgage-deed that in default of payment of mortgage money by 30 Baishakh 1385 Fasli, the defendant respondent failed to pay back the loan amount by the stipulated date, and, hence, the suit was filed for foreclosure. The case of the defendant-respondent was that there were business transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant and an amount of Rs. 500/-...
Tag this Judgment!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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Hrishikesh Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. C.K. Sharma Baruah, learned senior counsel representing the appellants/plaintiffs. Also heard Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned Counsel representing the respondents/defendants.2. This appeal before the Second Appellate Court is being directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1999 in T.A No. 7/99 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Nalbari, whereby the decree of dismissal of the suit by judgment dated 23.6.1999 and decree dated 30.6.1999 in T.S. No. 49/95 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Nalbari has been upheld.3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the raiyats (tenants) of the suit land and raiyati (khatian) has been issued in favour of the father of the plaintiffs, Syed Abdul Mazid in the previous settlement operation. After the death of the recorded raiyat Syed Abdul Mazid, the plaintiffs are possessing the land as his heirs and have been cultivating the land. After the cultivable land was dug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1948Bom337; (1948)50BOMLR221
Dixit, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of law which is whether the appellants' darkhast is barred by limitation, and the facts necessary to understand the question are these.2. In a suit to enforce a mortgage one Pandurang Bhikaji Shete obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on June 27, 1938. From that decree the defendant preferred an appeal and the appellate Court made on November 16, 1935, an order declaring the appeal to have abated since the judgment-debtor's heirs had not been brought upon the record, he having died after the filing of the appeal. Prior to that, the preliminary decree was made final on March 7, 1935. On March 30, 1935, the decree-holder applied by darkhast No. 618 of 1935 to execute the final decree, and on September 14, 1985, that darkhast was disposed of. In 1936 the decree-holder's sons, acting through their mother as guardian, assigned the decree to one Balvant, who is the uncle of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of appellant No. 3. Balvant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1963CriLJ202
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. Each of these appeals have been filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of both the accused concerned in the lower appellate Court. There are two accused in each of these cases. The first accused is Abdul Hameed Khan, He was the Central Excise Inspector alias Range Officer in charge of Puttur Range with head-quarters at Puttur during the relevant period i. e., 1951-52. The second accused in each of these cases is a tobacco merchant residing at Kuchivaripally about two miles from the town of Rajampet, Cuddapah District and held a wholesale licence which is called L-2 licence. The following tabular statement gives the details:Appeal No. in the C. C. No. in the trial Appeal in the lower Name of the 2ndHigh Court Court. appellate Court. accused.Crl. Appeal No. C. C. No. 213/1957. Cr. A. Nos. 13 & 14 of A. Pitchayya. T.509/1958. Crl. A. C. C. No. 214/57. 1958. Crl. A. Nos. 15 & Pitehayya. K.No. 510/58. Crl. A. CO. No. 215/57. C. 16/58. Crl. A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All327
Seth, J.1. The appellant in this case is the judgment-debtor. He objected to the execution of the decree against him, pleading that the application for execution was barred by limitation. This objection has been overruled by the lower Court although it was upheld by the Court of first instance. So the judgment-debtor has come up to this Court in second appeal, repeating the same objection.2. The decree sought to be executed was passed ex parte, on 4th November 1933. The defendant applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P C., to have it set aside. This application was dismissed on 30th October 1934, and the appeal from the order dismissing this application was itself dismissed on 30th January 1936. The first application for execution was made on 12th November 1941, and was dismissed for default, eight days later, on 20th November 1941. The second application for execution, which has resulted in this appeal, was made on 3rd October 1944. It would be in time under Article 182 (5), Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!