Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2015; (1972)4SCC236; 1971(III)LC274(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court of Assam & Nagaland in which the question involved is one of the quantum of compensation for certain land belonging to the respondent which had been acquired.2. A piece of land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Kathas 3 & Leches in Dibrugarh district belonging to the respondent was requisitioned on Aug., 22 1956 under the Assam Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948, hereinafter called the 'Act'. By a notification dated September 21, 1962 the said land was compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Act. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4583/-per Bigha. The respondent had at first claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per Bigha but after a little over month he raised his claim to Rs. 15,000/-per Bigha A reference was sought by the respondent to the District Judge who modified the award of the Collector and held that compensation was payable at the rate of Rs. 5500/-per Bigha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2016; 1971CriLJ1452; (1971)3SCC182; 1971(III)LC281(SC)
K.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellant with his father Tara Singh and brother Ram Singh were tried before the Sessions Judge, Amritsar for the murder of Mangal Singh, one of the sons of Tara Singh, on or about the 13th day of June 1968 in village Sohian Kalan. Tara Singh was acquitted by the trial Court but Ram Singh and the appellant were convicted Under Section 402, I.P.C. and sentenced to death by that Court. In appeal the High Court of Punjab and Haryana gave the benefit of doubt to Ram Singh and acquitted him but the appellant's conviction and the sentence imposed on him were confirmed. Hence this appeal by special leave.2. Tara Singh had five sons namely Ram Singh, Bakhshish Singh (the appellant), Harbans Singh, Nahad Singh and Mangal Singh (the deceased). It appears that the deceased left his native place and went to Shillong about 12 or 13 years prior to the concurrence and remained in Shillong till about a month prior to the occurrence, when he returned to his native place. After he c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1070; (1971)1SCC545; [1971]3SCR590
G.K. MITTER, J.1. The main question in these three appeals is, whether reception of secondary evidence of a written agreement to grant a lease is barred by the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The relevant facts are as follows. There is a rice mill in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, which was formerly owned by the appellant along-with Respondents 3, 4 and 5. The mill was built on a site with an area of Ac. 1-75 by one K.N. Raju who had obtained a lease thereof from the guardian of Respondents 1 and 2. It was executed on 21st December, 1941 and was to expire on 17th July, 1956. The Appellant and Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were successors-in-interest of the said leasehold rights. Respondents 1 and 2 served notice of ejectment on the lessees to quit the site and deliver possession on the expiry of the said lease.3. According to the lessees there were negotiations for a new lease. Respondents 1 and 2 demanded enhanced rent and an agreement was ultimately arrived ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC45; 1971MhLJ528(SC); (1971)1SCC542; [1971]3SCR604; 1971(III)LC265(SC)
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The appellants had filed a suit for claiming proprietary rights in a property which was known as 'Navegaon tank' and which consisted of several khasras with a total acreage of 3104 odd. These villages were Malguzari villages. By virtue of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands), Act, 1950 the malguzari of this tank were deprived of their rights and the Government took over possession. The compensation was paid by the Government after holding enquiry provided by the Act. The appellants, however, claimed a declaration that they still continued to be owners as before and wanted a permanent injunction restraining the Government H from interfering with their rights. Alternatively it was prayed that if the Government was found to be in possession then a decree for possession be granted in their favour.2. The Court Fee wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2018; (1972)4SCC165; 1971(4)WLN20
K.S. Hegde, J.1. This appeal by certificate is brought by the State of Rajasthan. It arises from a suit instituted by the District Board, Sikar, In the suit the District Board, Sikar, a statutory body, which has jurisdiction over the whole of Sikar District except the municipal towns in it sought to recover from the respondent a sum of Rs. 46,647/2/3 with costs and future interest. The case for the plaintiff was that it had the right to levy and realise certain cesses as well as contributions from the Thikanedars or Atiyadars in accordance with law it had imposed certain cesses under Section 31 of the Jaipur District Boards Act, 1947 and it was entitled to collect the said cess as well as the contribution from the respondent who was the Thikanedar of Sikar, for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and from April 1, 1954 to June 16, 1954,the date on which all zamindaries were abolished. The further case of the plaintiff was that the account of the cess and the contribution due from the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1972)4SCC205
K.S. HEGDE, J.1. This is a frivolous appeal. The allegation of the appellant is that in the petition filed before the High Court for special leave to appeal to this Court, the respondent had made certain false allegations against the appellant and her husband. On that basis she prayed that the respondent be prosecuted. The statements complained of do not constitute an offence in law. Further whether in a particular case action should be taken against a party is a matter within the discretion of the concerned Court. No Court will take notice of trifles. The High Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1558; 1983(13)ELT1456(SC); (1971)1SCC486; [1971]3SCR557
J.M. Shelat, J.1. This appeal, by certificate, arises from the respondent's suit in respect of fines and penalties recovered from them by the Collector of Customs, Bombay for the alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.2. The respondents held an import licence dated July 10, 1956 permitting them to import parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters as per appendix XXVI of the Import Policy Book for July-December 1956. Under the said licence, the respondents imported certain goods which arrived in two consignments, each containing 17 cases, by two different ships. According to the respondents, the goods so imported by them were motor cycle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Customs authorities, on the contrary, held, on the examination of the goods, that they constituted 51 sets of 'Rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition'. The Deputy Collector of Customs there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC42; (1972)4SCC261; 1971(III)LC230(SC)
A.N. Grover J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court. The facts may be stated. The appellant had purchased land measuring 3 Bighas, 6 Kathas and 3 Dhurs in the town of Kishanganj, Bihar. Out of the aforesaid land the dispute between the parties relates to an area of 1 Katha and 10 Dhurs. The respondent entered upon the appellant filed a suit in the year 1959 against the respondent for possession and mesne profits in respect of the land The suit was resisted by the respondent on various grounds One of the points which was raised by the respondent was that the interest of the appellant in the suit land was that of an intermediary and it had vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and that decree was affirmed by the first appellant Court.2. On Second appeal by the respondent the High Court called for a finding on the question as to what was the character and nat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1575; (1971)1SCC562; [1971]3SCR582
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 29 March, 1967 of the High Court of Kerala confirming the decree of the lower appellate Court declaring that the sum of Rs. 1000/is due to defendants No. 10 to 17 as legal representatives of defendant No. 2 on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint and that the plaintiffs having deposited the said sum of Rs. 1000/-on the file of the Court of the Munsif, Cannanore, the defendants No. 10 to 17 do surrender quiet and peaceable possession of the property described in the plaint to the plaintiff No. 7 with all documents relating to the property in their possession and further that the defendants No. 10 to 17 do pay to the plaintiff No. 7 half of the mesne profits from 22 December, 1953 till the date of surrender of possession.2. The relevant documents are Ex. B-6 and Ex. A-1. Ex. B-6 is a kanam-kuzhikanam. Ex. A-1 is its counterpart They are both dated 1 December, 1941. The transaction thereunder is a composite one, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2548; 1972MHLJ264(SC); (1972)4SCC181
K.S. Hegde, J.1. Defendant No. 2 in the suit from which this appeal arises is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiffs sued for the possession of the suit properties on the basis of their title. Their case was that defendant No. 1 Dagaduba, who was the owner of the suit properties sold the same to the plaintiffs on January 12, 1952; but some of the defendants had trespassed on those properties and hence they were constrained to file the suit. The suit was filed on February, 14, 1953.2. The first defendant in Ms written statement pleaded that the suit properties originally belonged to his family; there was a division in the family between himself and his brother, the second defendant; in that division the suit properties fell to Ms share; thereafter he became the absolute owner of the same and he mortgaged the same to the plaintiffs. But later he changed that version and admitted that he sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs. The second defendant admitted that the suit prope...
Tag this Judgment!