Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-28-1992
Reported in : AIR1992MP231
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. One set of defendants, consisting of defendants Nos. 2 to 9, hascome up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the two courts below, directing the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to be decreed in part granting a decree of declaration of title with respect to the part of the suit property, also declaring plaintiffs' entitlement to take water from the two wells proportionate with certain shares. The trial Court has held that the four plaintiffs with Mangilal, the defendant No. 1 are Bhumiswamis of the land described in para 12(a) of the plaint, also entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue papers accordingly, that the plaintiffs are entitled to take water from the well S. No. 164 to the extent of 1/4th; that S. No. 443 area 3 acres 8 decimal had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs and Mangilal the defendant No. 1 and they were the Bhumiswamis entitled to have their name mutated in the revenue papers; that the plaintiffs we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-27-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Kant39; ILR1992KAR1359; 1992(2)KarLJ307
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The following questions are referred for consideration and determination of the Full Bench :(1) What is the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunals under Section 112-B(b) of the Act in deciding the claim of occupancy right made under Section 48A of the Act ? (2) Is it not open to the Land Tribunals to decide all questions that arise while considering Form No. 7 filed for the purpose of granting or refusing the occupancy right claimed therein ? (3) When a jurisdiction is conferred upon the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant or not, does it not take into its fold to decide all the controversies having a bearing upon the claim in order to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not and (4) Which of the decisions of this Court in Mudukappa's case : AIR1978Kant136 and Guruvappa's case : ILR1985KAR386 or the decisions in Appi Belchadthi's case (1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565 and Yellappa's case, (R.F.A. No. 26 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-06-1992
Reported in : AIR1993MP175
T.N. Singh, J. 1. One short, but important question of law has been raised for our decision in this matter. Whether a second appeal lies in respect of an order passed in a proceeding instituted under Section 275, Quanoon Mal (of erstwhile Gwalior State)? That is extracted below. nQk 275 nkok QkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu & vxj nkokQkDd jgu ;k tjs jgu fdlh nLrkost jftLVh 'kqnk dks : ls djuk ykfte vkos rks panrhu lky rglhynkj lkgc ds btykl esa vkB vkus ds LVkEi ij nk;j gksxkA rglhynkj dsgqDe ds vihy lwckr esa gksxk vkSj gqDe lwck lkgkc ukfrd gksxk-2. Obviously, it is not necessary, therefore, to refer to all aspects of the long travail which parties have suffered during the course of long 20 years' life of this lis, but to the undisputed facts relevant to the controversy, a reference is still necessary. Hardeva, prede-cessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was recorded as a Pakka Krishak of land measuring 6 Bighas and 6 Biswas, in village Mohammadpur, Pargana and District Gwalior. He submitted an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-07-1992
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1240; 1992(3)KarLJ501
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. One batch of Writ Petitions, W.P. Nos. 12401 to 12403 of 1991, and another batch of Writ Petitions, W.P. Nos. 12348 to 12350 of 1991, have come up before this Division Bench for hearing because of an order dated 8-11-1991 made by a learned single Judge of this Court, which reads thus:'In the first batch of cases, the question raised is one relating to promotion of the petitioners and seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondent-2. There has been some previous litigations in this matter. In view of several orders passed by the learned single Judge and thereafter in Writ Appeal by the Division Bench, consideration or re-consideration of the same may arise. Hence, it would be appropriate that these cases should be referred to Division Bench.Though, in second batch of cases it is submitted that they are not connected with the first batch of cases which has been referred to Division Bench, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-15-1992
Reported in : 1993CriLJ442; 1992(II)OLR395
A. Pasayat, J.1. Even before the ink in certain judgments has become dry, divergence of view has surfaced and doubt regarding their correctness has arisen, relating to certain provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Though only one question was referred to the Full Bench for adjudication, members of the Bar pleaded that several other questions need a fresh look, and therefore, we have primarily considered the following questions :(1) Whether a Court of Session can, during transitional period as provided in Section 36-D of the Act take cognisance of an offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction without the accused being committed to it for trial ?(2) Whether a remand beyond a period of fifteen days as indicated in Section 36-A(1)(b) is permissible ?(3) Whether the conditions in Section 37 of the Act relating to giant of bail override the effect of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-19-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)ALT1
ORDERM.N. Rao, J.1. This judgment will dispose of all the six writ petitions since they raise common questions for decision. When the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners were either Chairmen of Zilla Praja Parishads or Presidents of Mandala Praja Parishads. Except the Chairman of the Rangareddy Zilla Parishad, the term of office of the other petitioners has expired. The challenge in the writ petitions, was originally confined to the legality of (1) G.O.Ms. No. 164, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department (Mandals-I) dated 8-3-90 by which a rule was made under Sub-section (1) of Section 92 and Sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Mandala Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla Abhivrudhi Sameeksha Mandals Act, 1986 (MPP & ZPP Act for short) and (2) G.O.Ms. No. 303, General Administration (Services-A) Department dt. 17-4-90, by which, the District Selection Committee for recruitment to the posts both in Government Departments and Panchayat Raj Bodies in the distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-01-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)20; 1994CriLJ1491
ORDERJ.P. Semwal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 12-6-1991, passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, rejecting the application (88 kha) of the accused-applicant,2. The accused applicant and one Raju moved an application 88 kha, on 12-6-1991, before the lower court, praying that their trial be separated from other co-accused and be transferred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with law. It was also prayed that suitable orders be passed for holding an enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the said court itself as contemplated under Section 5, read with Section 20/32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Affidavit and papers in support of proof in regard to age, were also filed. Authorities were cited on behalf of the revisionist before the lower court. The lower court considered the authorities cited on behalf of the revisionist and came to the conclusion that there was no question of separating the case or holding an enquiry, because when in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-17-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Ker146
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. The question referred to this larger Bench is one of great importance in respect of the rights of inheritance to females governed by the Marumakkathayam law in Kerala. The question is whether Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals with succession to females continues to be in force and operative notwithstanding the commencement of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Joint Family Abolition Act, 1975'). A learned single Judge of this Court in Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma, (1988) 2 Ker LT 964 and a Division Bench of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Kalliani, (1990) 2 Ker LT 749, have taken the view that the above-said Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 continues to be in force notwithstanding the Joint Family Abolition Act, 1975. It is the correctness of the said decisions that falls for consideration before us. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute and are as follows: The property in qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-24-1992
Reported in : AIR1992Ker383
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. Even though elaborate arguments have been advanced in this case, I feel the question 10 be decided falls within a narrow compass, for it is admitted that the factual details of the different cases need not be gone into. In all these cases, there had been violations of the Gold (Control) Rules against which prosecutions have been launched under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Act 45 of 1968) and the Rules framed thereunder. For violation of the Act and the Rules, criminal complaints have been filed and the same is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. In some cases charges have been framed and in others charges have not been framed. The Gold (Control) Act 1968 (For short 'the Act') was repealed with effect from 6-6-1990. It was only a simple repeal and was not followed by any re-enactment. The only question is whether the criminal cases pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) can be continued....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-03-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR329
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a suit for enforcing rights allegedly conferred under conveyance dated 20th March 1951 - hereinafter referred to as 'Ex.B'.2. Ratanchand Hirachand Doshi was the owner of a fairly large and valuable property comprising land and structures thereon which property was acquired by him on 15-4-1947 for a consideration of Rs. 6,55,580.80 ps. (see Ex. A-95). Certain parcels of vacant land from out of this property were transferred under three different transactions dated 28-11-1947, 18-5-1949 and 27-4-1950. That left Ratanchand with land measuring 6350.40 sq. yds. with various structures thereon. The structures included Ratan Villa also known as 'Ratan Villas' or the 'main bungalow', servants' quarters, out-house/guest-house, Secretary's house and garages. The area on which these structures stood covered 1292 sq. yds. A thousand sq. yds. to the west facing the Arabian Sea was required to be kept vacant as per the Government convenient. The vacant area in bits and pieces...
Tag this Judgment!