Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 61Ind.Cas.69
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant as Lambardar for the recovery of arrears of rent or revenue against the defendant-respondent, a co-sharer. The claim was laid at Rs. 456, for three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit. The claim was resisted on various pleas. The Assistant collector decreed the claim for Rs. 125-12-2 on the 30th of May 1917. On the 8th of August 1917, the plaintiff made an application to the Court of the Assistant Collector for amendment of the decree on the ground that the evidence of the Patwari showed that the money due to the plaintiff from the defendant for revenue for the years in suit was Rs. 374 2 5. The Assistant Collector, without issuing notice to the opposite party, amended the decree then and there on the 11th of September 1917, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge complaining of the disallowance of interest to his in the decree of this first dart. The appeal was re je...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ920; I(2001)DMC125; 2001(2)MPHT234
ORDERA.K. Gohil, J.1. The petitioner-husband has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short 'the Code') for quashing the orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain in Criminal Revision No. 182 of 1999 on 24-3-2000 confirming the order dated16-8-1999 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khachrod in Misc. Criminal Case No. 55 of 1998.2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the non-applicant/wife Smt. Jagrati w/o Ramfool Mina filed an application under Section 125 of the Code on 4-9-1991 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khachrod which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 16 of 1991 (New No. 55 of 1998). In this application she prayed a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance amount on the ground that her husband Ramfool Mina has contracted second marriage. The Trial Court after recording the evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards maintenance from 1-1-1999 by order dated 16-8-1999. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1973P& H409
ORDER1. One Sajjan Singh is alleged to have purchased agricultural land in the names of his wife and three sons. One of the sons was a minor. On 4th April, 1962, by means of three deeds, major portion of the property was sold by the father, acting on behalf of his minor son, his two sons and his wife to Mehnga Singh and others. The remaining property was also gifted by the same persons to the vendees on 4th April, 1963. One of the sons, namely, Harbans Singh, on becoming a major, brought a suit in July, 1970 against the vendees for possession of his one-fourth share in the said property. His allegations were that this father had no right to sell his share without first obtaining permission from the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The sale regarding his share was therefore, void and he was entitled to get possession of the property from the vendees.2. The suit was resisted by the vendees, but was ultimately decreed by the trial Court. Therefore, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1995)109PLR514
G.C. Garg, J.1. Katu Ram alias Chhotu Ram, respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint on the ground that he was a co-sharer. The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner. No plea of partition was taken in the written statement though admittedly during the pendency of the suit revenue authorities have ordered partition of the joint khewat. During the evidence this fact came to the notice of the plaintiff. It was at that stage, plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint to challenge the partition proceedings. The application was opposed by the defendant-vendee. The trial Court by its order dated May 21, 1993 allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Defendant of course, was permitted to file written statement to the amended plaint with liberty to raise all pleas that may be available to him. This is how the defendant-vendee has filed this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC325; [1961]1SCR982
Imam, J.1. These are appeals by special leave against the order of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated December 18, 1958, setting aside the order P. B. Mukherjea, J., dated February 8, 1957, whereby the rejected the petition of the respondent for amendment of the plaint, filed in Suit No. 1452 of 1951 in the High Court, in exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction. 2. The plaint in Suit No. 1452 of 1951 was filed in the name of Manilal & Sons, a firm carrying on business at No. 11A, Malacca Street, Singapore. The partners of this firm were five in number. They were (1) Manubhai Maganbhai Amin (2) Pravinbhai Dahyabhai Patel (3) Gangabhai Iswarbhai Patel (4) Bachubhai Manibhai Amin and (5) Dahyabhai Trikambhai. The defendant was the firm of Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. (now the appellant) - a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 - carrying on business at No. 55 Canning Street, Calcutta. In July, 1949, there was a contract between the plaintiff and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(13)SC428; (2009)6MLJ1138(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)556
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Distinction between Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order VI Rule 17 thereof is the question involved in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 4.9.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (NDP) No. 1643 of 2007.3. Before embarking on the said question, we may notice the admitted fact:Anantha Subramania Iyer had two brothers. They were members of a joint family. By reason of a deed of partition dated 23.8.1962, the said joint family properties were partitioned in terms whereof the properties involved in the present suit were allotted to Anantha Subramania Iyer. He had two sons and five daughters. Appellant is one of them. He allegedly executed a Will on or about 18.3.1993 in terms whereof he bequeathed the property in suit in favour of his wife. The said Will was said to have been attested by his sons. Anantha Sumramania passed away on 19.3.1993. Indisputably, his wife...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1980Delhi197; 1980RLR169
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J.(1) In due course L.A. Collector made the award. But as there was dispute between interested persons regarding payment of compensation Collector referred the dispute to Land Acquisition Judge u/s 30 & 31 of the Act. (2) The appellant Bhagwan Dass and Kirpa Ram (Kirpa Ram s/o Molar) were declared as the bhumidars of the land acquired by the Government by the Additional District Judge by order dated November 6, 1970 made on the reference under s. 30 and 31 of the Act. There were other claimants also. Kirpa Ram and Chandgi Ram son of Thakur Singh claimed to be the owners. They claimed compensation on the ground of ownership. Then there were Ranbir Singh and Randhir Singh sons of Chandgi Ram. They laid claim to compensation on the basis of possession. After an enquiry into the respective claims of all the interested persons the land acquisition Judge came to the conclusion that Bhagwan Dass and Kirpa Ram were the bhumidars. He found in their favor and ordered that c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi82; 1974RLR491
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order of the trial Court allowing the respondent's application for amendment of the plaint in the suit instituted by the respondent inter alia, for recovery of possession of the property in dispute from the petitioner. (2) The facts are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The petitioner has been in occupation of the premises in dispute since September, 1963 on the basis of a letter issued by the respondent the owner of the property, and one of the questions in controversy between the parties is as to the true construction of the letter viz' whether the aforesaid letter can be construed as creating a lease in favor of the petitioner or a mere license in respect of the property in dispute. The suit out of which the revision has arisen was tiled by the respondent on October 29,' 1969 oddly enough for a 'mandatory injunction^ directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute and for recovery of license fee on account of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 58(1995)DLT622; 1995(33)DRJ98; 1995RLR361
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This is defendant No.7's appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6 May 1994, dismissing her application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of written statement filed on her behalf on 15 November 1988 in Suit No.662/1988. (2) The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, in brief, narrated the progress in the suit proceedings from the beginning till the filing of the application for amendment and observed that it was manifest there from that the application was moved after five years of the institution of the suit and after the conclusion of arguments by counsel for the contesting parties and after filing of written arguments by the plaintiff and defendant No.7. The Court thus, felt that the application for amendment was highly belated and had been moved with a view to delaying the disposal of the case. The application for amendment was thus dismissed in liming. The dismissal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker329
K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. 1. A substantial question has been raised in this appeal. That relates to the right of a mortgagee to claim Interest provided in the mortgage deed from the date of suit till the period fixed for redemption. The Life Insurance Corporation advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - to the respondents for the purpose of construction of a residential-cum-office building in the plaint schedule property which was mortgaged to the corporation. Respondents having committed default to repay the amount the corporation filed the suit O. S. 547/83 before Sub Court, Trivandrum. The suit was for realisation of the amount together with interest at 161/2% per annum. On the total amount due as on the date of plaint further interest at the same rate was also claimed. Respondents admitted the transaction and their liability to pay the amount but contended that interest is payable only at the rate of 6% from date of suit. A decree was therefore given in favour of the plaintiff for the amo...
Tag this Judgment!