Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1952SC350; (1952)IIMLJ641(SC); [1952]1SCR756
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. 1. The earlier of the two petitions has been filed by one Ujagar Singh, under article 32 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus and for an order of release from detention. The latter petition is a similar one by one Jagjit Singh. In both the partitions, the respondent is the State of Punjab. The orders of detention were made under the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950. The petitions are not connected with each other, except that they raise the same grounds. 2. In Petition No. 149 of 1950, Ujagar Singh was originally arrested and detained under the East Punjab Public Safety Act on 29th September, 1948. He was released on 28th March, 1949, but on the same date, there was an internment order against him. On 29th September, 1949, he was re-arrested. On 2nd March, 1950, an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was served on him, and on 3rd April, 1950, he was served with the grounds of the detention dated 11th March, 1950....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC199; (1951)53BOMLR532; [1951]2SCR221
Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants are owners of a property known as 'Bharat Bhuvan Theatre' at Ahmedabad. The respondents are the lessees of the said theatre. The term of the lease was to expire on the 2nd December, 1945, unless the lessees gave to the landlords three months previous notice in writing of their intention of exercising their option of renewal of the lease for a further period of two years. On the 13th December, 1945, the appellants filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for ejectment of the respondents and for recovery of certain amounts. This suit was decreed on the 14th October, 1947, on the following findings : (1) that the respondents had not exercised the option of the renewal of the lease according to the stipulations contained in the lease, (2) that they had committed breaches of the terms of the lease, and (3) that they were not protected by the Rent Restriction Act. An enquiry was directed into the amount of mesne profits. The respondents filed an appeal in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC184; [1951]2SCR161
Fazl Ali, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Judicial Commissioner of Coorg in a suit filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the first defendant) and the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the second defendant), for the specific performance of a contract. The first defendant owned a bungalow in Mercara known as 'Morvern Lodge'. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff for the specific performance of an alleged contract of sale in respect of this bungalow. 2. It appears that the first defendant owned certain estates in Mercara, and one Mr. White was an alternative director in one of the estates, and Youngman was the manager of another estate also belonging to the first defendant and was looking after 'Morvern Lodge' during his absence. It seems that about the middle of 1944, the plaintiff asked White if he would cable to the first defendant his o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC177; [1951]2SCR277
Mukherjea, J.1. This Appeal is on behalf of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell a house in the town of Gaya, belonging to the defendants second party who, it is alleged, agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff but subsequently resiled from the agreement and sold the same to the defendants first party who purchased it with notice of the contract. 2. The plaintiff's case, in substance, is that in September, 1941, the defendants second party, who owned a house at Gaya, entered into negotiations for sale of the same, with one Jadu Ram, and the title deeds of the property were actually handed over to the latter. These negotiations failed and the second party defendants thereupon approached the plaintiff firm and a contract was entered into by and between them sometime towards the end of October, 1945, under which the former agreed to sell to the latter, their house at Gaya for a consideration of Rs. 34,000. Out of this consideration, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC186; [1951]2SCR153
Mahajan, J.1. This appeal arises out of Suit No. 9 of 1939 instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palamau by the appellants against the respondents for a number of declarations in respect to the title to certain lands and for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with a rent suit. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge but on appeal this decision was reversed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the appellants suit was dismissed. 2. The salient facts of the case are as follows : Village Darha belonged to a family of Pathaks as their ancestral lakhraj. Over a hundred years ago the Pathaks granted the entire village in mokarrari to the ancestors of the family of Singhas (defendants' first and second parties) at an annual jama of Rs. 24. The mokarrari interest eventually devolved on three branches of the Singha family, each branch getting in the following proportions : Parameshwar Dayal and others, defendants' first party, to the extent of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC180; (1951)53BOMLR951; [1951]2SCR266
Mahajan, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying the decree of the trial court and decreeing partially the plaintiff's suit. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Haji Ali Mohamed Haji Cassum. The State of Bombay is the respondent. 2. The facts giving rise to this controversy, briefly stated, are as follows :- Village Dahisar originally formed part of the Malad Estate comprising in all eight villages. The said estate was conveyed by the East India Company to two Dady brothers for valuable consideration by a deed of indenture dated the 25th January, 1819. By that conveyance all the lands in the eight villages were conveyed absolutely to the said purchasers and it was covenanted by the company that the purchasers, their heirs and assigns shall peaceably and quietly enjoy the said villages and receive and take the rents and profits there of without any hindrance or interruption from the said Company. By a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC115; [1951]2SCR145
Fazl Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High court of Judicature at Patna reversing the appellate decree of a Subordinate Judge, in a suit instituted by the respondents. The facts of the case are briefly these. The respondents have been in occupation as a monthly tenant of several blocks of premises belonging to the appellants at a monthly rental of Rs. 112. The rent for the months of March, April and May, 1942, having fallen into arrears, they remitted it along with the rent for June, on 28th June, 1947, by means of two cheques. As the appellants did not accept the cheques, on 4th August, 1947, the respondents remitted the amount subsequently by postal money order. On 12th August, 1947, the appellants, maintaining that there was non-payment of rent and hence the respondents were liable to be evicted, under section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (Bihar Act III of 1947), applied to the House Controller for the evi...
Tag this Judgment!