Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-02-1968
Reported in : AIR1969MP35
Shrivastava, J.1. This judgment governs the disposal of twelve Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 8, 9, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 1963 which have all been filed against the order of Sheodayal, J. allowing the several appeals filed by the respondents.2. In order to appreciate the points raised in support of the appeals, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. Chaturbhuj and Sewaram executed two simple mortgage deeds on 4-9-1924 and 30-6-1927 in favour of Pyarelal, Ramlal and Motilal mortgaging their proprietary rights in village Jerwans along with the homefarm (sir and khudkasht) lands. In the second mortgage bond, they had agreed to the condition that they would not lease out the homefarm lands. In spite of this agreement, they leased out the khudkasht lands to several persons. The mortgagors and mortgagees have been succeeded by their legal representatives but it is not necessary to give details. We shall refer to the mortgagees as creditors, the mortgagors as pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-02-1968
Reported in : AIR1968MP254; 1968MPLJ616
Dixit, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Shiv Dayal J. dismissing an appeal preferred by the appellants against an order of the District Judge, Sagar by which the learned District Judge rejected an application preferred by the appellants under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C.2. The material facts are that in execution of a money decree held by the respondent No. 1 Bittibai against Babulal, Rikhilal, Rani Bahu, Rameshwar Prasad. Maharani, Bhagwandas and three others, a house belonging to the judgment-debtors was sold on 8th January 1966 and purchased by the respondent No 2 Himmatbhai. On 17th January 1966, the respondent Babulal made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale. On 7th February 1966 an application under Order 21, Rule 89, signed by Babulal, was made and on the same day the requisite deposit under Order 21, Rule 89 was made by Babulal on behalf of himself and on behalf of Rikhilal, Bhagwandas and Rameshwar Prasad. The learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-26-1968
Reported in : AIR1969MP143; (1970)ILLJ136MP; 1968MPLJ833
Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 220 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari-(i) an order dated 22 March 1961, whereby the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 133/- on a new time scale of payintroduced retrospectively from 17 November 1954; (ii) another consequential order dated 2 December 1961 by which directions were given for recovery of Rs. 132.15 from the salary of the petitioner on account of over-payments made to him since 6 June 1959; and (iii) an order dated 1 December 1964 by which the petitioner was given an opportunity for election exercisable under Rules 4 and 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of mandamus prohibiting the authorities from giving effect to the aforesaid orders. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, shortly stated, are these. The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Public Works Department of the old State of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!