Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC910; (1970)1SCC702; [1970]3SCR837; 1970(3)WLN11
v. Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of properties in the family of one Lalaji Ramchandra who was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit. He had two sons, Govindraoji and Motilal alias Krishnaraoji. The plaintiffs/appellants and the non contesting proforma respondents are the descendants of Motilal, while the contesting respondents are the descendants of Govindraoji, the principal one being Chandrakant Rao who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. The appellants sought partition of all the family properties, including eight villages known as 'the sarola Jagir' which were situated in the erstwhile State of Kota. The trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, holding that none of the properties in suit was ancestral property. On appeal by the present appellants, the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the dismissal of the suit insofar as the appellants had claimed a share in the eight villages forming the Sarola Jagir, while the suit in respect of the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC808
A.N. GROVER, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madras High Court involving the construction of a will executed on January 11, 1933, by Yagappa Nadar. The following short pedigree table will be of assistance in understanding the facts:Yagappa Nadar (death March 16, 1938) A.Y. Arulanandaswami NadarA.Y.S. Parisutha NadarY.A. Arogyaswamy Nadar(death July 13, 1961)A. Aruputham(plaintiff-Appellant) Yagappa (minor)(Defendant) In his will Yagappa set apart certain properties for charities. The properties so set apart are contained in three Schedules ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ attached to the will. The income from these properties was to be respectively used for the purpose of charities specified in Schedules ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’. The testator made provision for the management of the three sets of properties. We are concerned, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2355; (1971)73BOMLR492; 1971MhLJ37(SC); (1970)1SCC613; [1970]3SCR830
J.C. Shah, J. 1. Under an indenture dated August 2, 1950, Dossibai--respondent in this appeal--granted a lease of 555 sq. yards in village Pahadi, Taluka Borivli to Mathura Prasad--appellant herein--for constructing buildings for residential or business purposes. The appellant constructed buildings on the land. He then submitted an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, District Thana, that the standard rent of the land be determined under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Civil Judge rejected the application holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to open land let for constructing buildings for residence, education, business, trade or storage. This order was confirmed on September 28, 1955, by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a group of revision applications : MRs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Hingoo Manohar Missar : Nos. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2360; 1971(0)BLJR1; (1970)1SCC555; [1970]3SCR826
A.N. Grover, J. 1. This is an appeal by certificate against a judgment of the Patna High Court in a suit instituted by the appellant for arrears of Mokurrari rent and cess with interest for four kists and for khas possession by evicting the respondents. In the alternative the appellant asked for the payment of compensation money in respect of Mokurrari tenure which had vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950.2. By means of a registered instrument dated October 29, 1885 the then proprietor of four villages had created a Mokurrari tenure (permanent lease) in favour of Frederick Richard Simson and George Venes. The appellant had acquired the proprietary interest in the villages by purchase and similarly the respondents had acquired the Mokurrari tenure. In the registered instrument there was a clause that in the event of a default in payment of four successive kists the proprietor would be competent to cancel the Mokurrari patta. The respondents did not pay four...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1542; (1970)1SCC558
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by certificate is whether the properties covered by Exh. B-6 were the properties of the joint Hindu family of the parties to the suit and consequently available for partition. 2. The suit is for partition in a family governed by Mitakshara law. The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. Their father was one Reddinaidu. The father and the three sons constituted a joint Hindu family. The father died in about the year 1937. The appellant was the eldest son. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the 1st respondent claiming a 1/3rd share in the properties detailed in the plaint-schedule. Some of the properties included In the plaint-schedule are admittedly joint family properties. About them there is no dispute. But the appellant claimed that the properties covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-7 are his separate properties and as such his brothers cannot claim any share therein. The trial Court acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC878
J.C. SHAH, J.1. G.H. Muhammad Yousuff Sait — hereinafter called “Sail”— was the owner of a house at Ootacamand. M. Marathachalam Pillai — hereinafter called “Pillai” — obtained a money decree against Sait and attached the house belonging to Sait in execution of the decree on August 7, 1956. The house was then put up for sale and was purchased by Pillai with the leave of the court on February 7, 1958. In obtaining possession of the House Pillai was obstructed by Padmavathi (respondent in this appeal) who claimed that she had purchased it for Rs 15,000 under a private sale from at on October 9, 1956. The executing court ordered in a summary enquiry that the obstruction raised by Padmavathi be removed. Padmavathi then filed a suit in the civil court for setting aside the summary order. The trial court dismissed the suit against Pillai holding that the house had been properly attached and the sale being contrary to the attachment levied by Pi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1269; 1971(0)BLJR110; (1970)1SCC648; [1970]3SCR963
Hidayatullah, C.J., 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna, December 8, 1969 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1040 of 1969. It is brought to this Court by special leave. The appellant is the Bihar School Examination Board through its Chairman. The respondents are 36 students of S.S.H.E. School, Jagdishpur and H. E. School Malaur, District Shahabad. They had moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Board cancelling annual Secondary School Examination of 1969 in relation to Hanswadih center in Shahabad District. They had also asked that a mandamus be issued to the Board to publish the results of the students who appeared at this center. The High Court has quashed the order of cancellation and directed the Board to publish the results.2. Candidates at the Secondary School Examination held in March, 1969 appeared at various centers including Hanswadih center. The results were published in July 1969 but th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC915; (1970)GLR974; [1970]77ITR505(SC); (1970)1SCC561; [1970]3SCR819
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. These appeals by certificate under Section 29 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise from a reference under Section 27(1) of the Act to the High Court of Gujarat. Therein four questions were referred to the High Court for its opinion. These four questions really gave rise to two questions of law viz. (1) whether under the three trust deeds referred to therein the assessee got annuities falling within the scope of Section 2(e) (iv) and (2) whether the value of the jewels owned by the assessee was exempt under Section 5(1)(viii) in computing the net wealth of the assessee ?2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment years with which we are concerned in these appeals are 1957-58 and 1958-59, the corresponding valuation dates being December 31, 1956 and December 31, 1957.3. By a deed of settlement dated September 7, 1945 the father of the assessee settled certain shares of the Indian Companies of the estimated value of Rs. 5,5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1971)3SCC784
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. Some of the defendants in the suit have brought this appeal after obtaining certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The suit was brought by one Kochi for partition and possession of an half share in the suit properties on the strength of her title to the same. Her case was that the suit-schedule properties were owned by two brothers by name Ittiri and Ittaman; each one of them had a half share of those properties; they were tenants-in-common; after the death of Ittiri she became entitled to his share. The suit was resisted by the defendants on two grounds, namely, (1) that the plaintiff had no title to the suit properties and (2) that even if she had any title, it was lost by ouster. The trial court accepted the defendants' case and dismissed the suit. In appeal the High Court of Kerala partly allowed the plaintiff's claim. It came to the conclusion that in respect of some of the items mentioned in the plaint-schedule, Ittiri and Ittaiman were co-owner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1659; (1970)1SCC550; [1970]3SCR809
A.N. Grover, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The dispute relates to survey No. 284 having an area of 11 acres and 6 gunthas in Mouza Paras, Taluk Balapur, District Akola. The appellant is the owner of this field while respondent No. 1 is the protected lessee. The case is governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act (Vidharbha & Kutch area) Act 99 of 1958 which came into force on December 30, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act'. In August 1963 the appellant filed an application before the Tahsildar under Sections 43(14A) and 36(2) of the Act for possession of the aforesaid field on the ground that respondent No. 1 had failed to exercise his right of purchase in respect of that field under the provisions of the Act. He must, therefore, be deemed to have surrendered the same to the appellant. The Tahsildar sustained the defence of respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!