Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2391; (1973)2SCC474; [1974]1SCR290
D.G. Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal Appeal No. 2128 of 1963. The plaintiffs brought the suit against one Bhaiya Lal, the present respondent, in respect of certain Bhumidari plots. The plots had been purchased in the name of one Markandey-the - the uncle of the plaintiffs. After the death of Markandey who died without issue, the plots were recorded recorded in the name of his widow Jagdamba. Jagdamba died in 1948. The plaintiffs as the next reversioners claimed title to the property. They alleged that the respondent was interfering with their possession and hence they prayed for a permanent injunction. In the alternative, they also asked for the relief of possession. The suit was filed on 5-9-1955.2. Several pleas were taken on behalf of the defendant one of them being a plea of limitation. The courts were unanimously of the opinion that the plaintiffs, being the next heirs, had sufficient tit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1797; 1974CriLJ1265; (1973)2SCC458
P. Jagammohan Reddy, J.1. Eight accused were charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, of offences of murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, theft etc. in respect of an incident which took place on June 9, 1968 at about 9 P.M. in the village of Sathiali. Tarlok Singh accused-1, Avtar Singh accused-4, Upar Singh accused-5, are brothers. Gurdial Singh accused-6 is their relation. Ajit Singh accused-2, Dilbagh Rai accused-7 and Saudagar Singh accused-8 are said to be drinking friends of the accused. Daljit Kaur accused-3 is the wife of Manjit Pal Singh s/o the village Pradhan Harcharan Singh P.W. 9. The prosecution case against the accused is that Daljit Kaur who is married to Manjit Pal Singh did not want to live in the house of her father-in-law and her husband, because according to her the father-in-law had an evil eye on her and she wanted to go away to her sister's place. According to the prosecution, Harcharan Singh who is said to be aged 90 years had three sons, two of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2405; (1973)2SCC472; 1973(5)LC768(SC)
Palekar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, on a certificate, from the judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated August 5, 1965 in First Appeal No. 68 of 1960.2. One Babu Deonandan Prasad Singh died in 1925 leaving behind him considerable property. His widow Dulhin Janki Dulair Kaur, defendant No. 4 being the next heir, inherited that property. In about 1953 the widow settled about 80 bighas of bakasht land in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who were the brothers of defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 3, who was the nephew of defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs, claiming to be reversioners, filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, on 7-9-1957, alleging that the settlements were liable to be set aside as they were malafide, illegal and without consideration and were designed to injure or jeopardize the right of inheritance of the reversioners. The original plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be the nearest reversioner and the other plaintiff claimed to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2468; 1973LabIC1467; (1973)2SCC466; 1973(5)LC722(SC)
Alagiriswami, J.1. The question that arises in these two Appeals is the same as arose in judgment of this Court in Shamsher Jang Shukla's case reported in the : (1972)IILLJ186SC . The respondents in these cases are officials of the Punjab Government, the history of whose services is the same as that of the persons whose cases were dealt with in that judgment. On the basis of that judgment these two appeals have to be dismissed. However, an application, CMP No. 103 of 1973, has been filed in C.A. No. 1678 of 1970 for amendment of the written statement and for urging additional grounds in the appeal. By that petition the appellant wants to contend that since the post of assistant, for which the passing of the examination which was struck down in the reported judgment was made a necessary qualification under the rule, was newly created and there was no such post earlier there is no question of changing the service conditions of the respondent to his disadvantage, and Section 115(7) of Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2378; (1973)2SCC573; 1973(5)LC747(SC)
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff and the 11th defendant purchased under the sale deed (Exhibit P-3) dated 5-6-1941 about 200 acres of land on Jagdeopur village in Biddipet Taluq of Medak District and about 450 acres of land in Gandamalla in Bhongir taluq of Nalgonda District for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. According to the plaintiff she borrowed Rs. 3,000/- from the 11th defendant to enable her to make the purchase and the name of the 11th defendant was included in the sale deed in order to provide security for the amount to advanced by the 11th defendant. There were an oral agreement to that effect prior to the sale and this was reduced to writing under Exhibit P-8. The amount due to the 11th defendant was repaid in 1944 and she was entitled to all the lands. Defendants 1-10 dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit lands during the disturbances proceeding the Police Action in the old Hyderabad State in 1948. The defendant contended that the sale deed represented the true state of facts and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2469; 1973CriLJ1602; (1973)2SCC575; [1974]1SCR281
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated March, 28, 1972 made under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act No. 26 of 1971-hereinafter called 'the Act'. Initially he was arrested under the Official Secrets Act, 19 of 1923, and was remanded by the Magistrate on October 24, 1971. On November 19, 1971, the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur made an order of detention under Section 3 of the Act which was served on the petitioner while he was still in confinement under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. He was also served with the grounds of the detention. The Order of the District Magistrate, however, was not approved by the State Government and the petitioner was directed to be released in respect of his detention under the Act. The petitioner thereafter moved the Sessions Judge for bail and was directed on March 2, 1972 to be released on his executing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-. The bail bond furnished by him was accepted by the Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2418; 1973CriLJ1612; (1973)2SCC456
H.R. Khanna, J.1. The four appellants Ram Pujan, Raj Kishore, Rajendra and Ram Brikchh and three others Avadh Kishore, Dukhi and Balram were convicted by the Temporary Sessions Judge Basti under Sections 326 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years on the former count and three months on the latter count. Rajendra and Raj Kishore were also convicted under Section 452 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Besides that the four appellants were convicted under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal the Allahabad High Court acquitted Avadh Kishore, Dukhi and Balram. The conviction of the appellants was altered to that under Section 326 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1973)2CTR(SC)373
Alagiriswami, J. - On 6-11-1964 the Municipal Council of Bhopal made bye-law under the provisions of sec. 359(7)(f) and (m) read with A 349(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 after previous publication in the M. P. Rajpatra as required under sec. 357(4) and confirmation by the State Government under sec. 357(3) in respect of a Municipal bus stand. The Bye-Law 2 of the bye-laws provided that no person incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the limits of the Bhopal Municipality except at the Municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws provided for a levy of a fee of Re. 1/- for every eight hours or part thereof in respect of the use of the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment. On 13-11-1964 the respondents filed a writ petition in the said High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws. The High Court held that bye-laws 1(c), whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC2420; 1974MPLJ362(SC); (1973)2SCC478; [1974]1SCR274
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. On 6-11-1964 the Municipal Council of Bhopal made bye-laws under the provisions of Section 356(7)(f) & (x) read with Section 349(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 after previous publication in the M.P. Rajpatra as required under Section 557(4) and confirmation by the State Government under Section 357(3) in respect of a Municipal bus stand. Bye-law 2 of the bye-laws provided that no person incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall for the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the limits of the Bhopal Municipality except at the Municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws provided for a levy of a fee of Re. 1/- for every eight hours or part thereof in respect of the use of the bus stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment. On 13-11-1964 the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws. The High Court held that bye-law 1(c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1744; 1974CriLJ1285; (1974)4SCC97; 1973(5)LC754(SC)
Khanna, J.1. Ram Singh, Bhim Singh and Krishna Murari were tried in the court of Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur. Bhim Singh was convicted under Section 398 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, while the other two appellants were convicted under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. On appeal the Allahabad High Court altered the conviction of Bhim Singh to that under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months. The conviction of Ram Singh and Krishna Murari was altered to that under Section 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. It was held by the High Court that on September 8, 1967 Bhim Singh appellant at the instigation of the two other appellants had caused hurt to Ram Sarup on the ro...
Tag this Judgment!