Court : Patna
P.K. Deb, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the above-named plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19-6-91 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Sitamarhi in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1989 (52 of 1989) affirming the judgment and decree dated 21-4-89 passed by Munsif (West), Sitamarhi in Eviction Suit No. 15 of 1986. The eviction suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants had been dismissed by both the Courts below holding thereby that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit that being Karta of the Mitakshra Joint family he managed the properties including the suit properties appertaining to C.S. P. No. 601 having an area of one Bigha five Katha and eight dhoors of village Bahilbara alias Garah within the district of Sitamarhi. As per plaintiffs case one Most. Arzi Ojhain daughter-in-law of Girdhari Jha, one of the co-sharers of C.S.P. No. 601 executed a verna bond dated 1-6-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, IIIrd, Biharsharif, in Tittle Appeal No. 7 of 1975/11 of 1982 affirming the judgment of the trial Court, passed in title Suit No. 159 of 1968 by the Munsif at Biharsharif on 20-12-1974. The plaintiffs of that suit are the appellants herb.2. The case of the plaintiff-appellants was that the suit land was owned and possessed by one Sk. Makhdum. Sk. Makhdum gifted 3.29 acres of land to his sons and daughter by registered deed of gift dated 6-7-1923 Makhdum died in the year 1926. The rest of his lands measuring 3.29 acres were inherited by sons and daughters of Sk. Makhdum, plaintiff-appellants purchased the entire suit land from the heirs and successors of Makhdum. However, Evacuee Department of the Government of India declared the suit property as Evacuee Property. The plaintiff-appellants learnt of this declaration in the year 1965, when the suit property was bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Jha, J.1. The petitioner, caveator-opposite-party in the court below, challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge in seisin of the proceeding to grant probate of a will in a proceeding under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Succession Act' in short). The objection having been rejected he has come to this Court in revision.2. It is contended by the petitioner that by reason of the provisions contained in the Act, only the District Judge is competent to grant probate or letters of administration in contentious proceeding. Court other than that of the District Judge have jurisdiction only if the grant is not contested. The question for consideration is whether the District Judge alone is competent to grant probate of letters of administration in contentious proceedings.3. The provisions referred to by Mr. Balbhadra Singh, an Advocate of this Court appearing in person, in support of his contention are contained in Sections 2(bb), 264, 265, 286 of the Succession A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prasun Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.80 and 5.3.80 respectively in Title suit No. 147/14 of 1975/1978 passed by Sri Ram Chandra prasad, the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit lands, details of which were given in the schedule of the plaint and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the same and for any other reliefs, if deemed fit and proper.3. It is admitted that parties are Kurmi Mahto and according to the plaintiffs, they are Kurmabansi Khhatriya cast Hindus governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But they are governed in respect of inheritance by the rule of primogeniture. One Mangal Mahato was the predeccesor in interest of both the plaintiffs and the defendant, He being the common ancest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Gurusharan Sharma, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 of Title Suit No. 101 of 1975 have preferred this Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.6.1989, passed by the 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge,Arrah, where by the plaintiffs were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 62,000/-, being the remaining amount of consideration money, within a period of three months and the defendants were directed to withdraw the said amount and then execute the sale deed with respect to the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs.2. One Baldeo Singh, son of Kali Singh, of village Larauba, P.S. Makdumpur, district Gaya, on 27.5.1975 executed an agreement for sale in favour of Janki Singh and others of village Bhikhampur, P.S. Sahar, district- Bhojpur with respect to 3.57 acres land of Revisional Survey Khata Nos. 56 and 66 situated at village Bhikampur. The lands, including a house over R.S. Plot No. 625 was agreed to be sold for Rs. 80,000/-. A sum of Rs. 14,000/- was paid in advance and Janki Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.S. Garg, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA No. 675 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Prashant Kr. Sharma, arising out of CWJC No. 3822/97), LPA No. 676 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Nirmat Kr. Sinha and Ors., arising out of CWJC No. 4337 of 1997), L.P.A. No. 677 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Satish Kr. Singh, arising out of CWJC No. 4982 of 1997), LPA 678 of 2000, (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ravindra Narayan Thakur and Ors. arising out of 3345 of 1997) LPA No. 680 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Ayodhya Prasad, arising out of CWJC No. 6200 of 1998), LPA No. 681 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Siya Ram Choudhary, arising out of CWJC No. 9591 of 1997), LPA No. 687 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Binod Kumar., arising out of CWJC No. 10490 of 1997), LPA No. 689 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Abhiram Jha and Ors., arising out of CWJC No. 10436/97), LPA No. 690 of 2000 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Fuldeo Sah, ari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner against the order dated 8-6-2000 passed by Munsif Jamui in Title Suit No. 49 of 1998 rejecting his objection regarding the maintainability of the suit.2. The plaintiff-opposite party on 19-4-1996 filed Administrative Suit No. 24 of 1996 claiming that they and the defendant-petitioner are own brothers and they deal in kerosene oil business in the name and style of M/s National Agencies at jamui. The kerosene oil business was a joint family business and looked after by his father as a Karta and after his death, the defendant-petitioner was looking after the same. In 1989, a partnership deed was created between them which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Later on, the defendant-petitioner started acting dishonestly and accordingly, the said suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant being partners of M/s National Agencies are entitled to 1/3rd share each in profits and loss and defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. This appeal, by the plaintiffs in the suit, is against the decree of 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 27th March, 1985, whereby the plaintiffs' appeal against the decree of the Munsif dismissing the suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage-bond dated 6.5.1914 and for restoration of possession of entire property described in Schedule-A of the plaint was affirmed.2. The relevant facts stated as follows. Bansi Ram, Murai Ram and Ajodhya Ram were the owners of 8 decimals of land of plot No. 2827 situated at Barbigha. On 8.1.1914, they executed a mortgage-bond to Chetan Ram and put him in possession. Chetan Ram transferred the mortgage deed to Amirchand Ram by registered deed. Amirchand Ram also transferred his mortgage deed to Shiva Prasad Lai. The latter transferred the mortgage deed to Dhaka Ram who was the ancestor of the defendants. Dhaka Ram died about 30 years ago from the date of institution leaving behind his sons Harangi Ram, Damodar Ram, Ram Jiwan Ram, Ramand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Syed Haider Shoukat Abidi, J.1. Appellant, Samtul Dhobi has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and has been awarded sentence of death while appellant, Sufchal Dhobi has also been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants have also been convicted under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC but no sentence has been awarded. Hence, these Death Reference 3 of 1992 Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1992 by both the appellants.2. A First Information Report (Ext. 4) was lodged by the informant Ramzan Mian on 2-5-1991 at 7.30 a. m. at Majhaulia Police Station in which it has been said by the informant (PW 9) that in the night of 2-5-1991 at about 8 p. m. while his daughter (Ambud Nisa, PW 11) aged about 14 years, was sleeping with his wife Sakina Khatoon aged about 45 years on the floor by spreading a mat infront of the door of his house and while his daughter-in-law (Saimul Nisa, PW 8) wife of Maoz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. This writ application has been filed for quashing orders dated 12.1.1996, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hazaribagh, contained in annexures 4, 5 and 6, whereby purporting to act under Section 7A of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be refereed to as 'the Act') bank accounts of the petitioner-company in three banks viz. United Commercial Bank, Ranchi, State Bank of India, Ranchi and Bank of India, Ranchi have been attached for payment of the amount of surcharge under Section 3A of the Act. Further prayer has been made for a declaration that the petitioners are not liable to pay amount of surcharge under Section 3A of the Act.2. Short facts are that petitioner No. 1is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act having its registered office in the district of Hazaribagh and petitioner No. 2 is its Deputy Manger (Accounts). The petitioner-company is manufacturer of alloys, tool and special steel and ...
Tag this Judgment!