Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2068; (1975)77PLR19; (1974)2SCC363; [1975]1SCR605
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In these appeals, a common question of law arises for consideration and this judgment will dispose of all the appeals.2. We will take up for consideration Civil Appeal No. 941 (N) of 1973. The appellant challenges the correctness of a decree passed by the High Court dismissing a suit for pre-emption. The plaint property belonged to defendant No. 4. He sold the same to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by a sale deed dated July 29, 1965 and registered on October 14, 1965. The appellant who is the daughter of defendant No. 4 claiming that she has right to preempt, instituted the suit through her guardian. The trial court decreed the suit. Against the decree, an appeal was preferred by the vandees. That appeal was dismissed on July 17, 1971. An appeal was preferred to the High Court against this decree. 3. The Punjab Preemption (Repeal) Act, 1973 (Act II of 1973) received the assent of the Governor of Punjab on April 6, 1973 and was published in the Punjab Gazette on April 9, 1973....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2367; (1975)4SCC404
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by certificate against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing the pre-emption suit of the appellant by reversing the concurrent Judgment of the trial court and the 1st Appellate court.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they had purchased on 10-5-55 the share of Khotu and Chandu Ram in Khewat 2, Khata 26 to 44 and 6 bigas and 7 biswas in Khewat No. 3 Khatas 49 to 54 comprising in all an area of 213 bigas and 14 biswas. On 16-4-57 respondents 1 to 6 purchased 926 bighas in Khewats nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 43,600/-. Nearly a year thereafter the deed of sale was registered on 19-3-68. The plaintiffs filed a pre-emption suit against respondents 1-6 on the ground that they were Biswadars and co-sharers in the land in dispute. For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to consider their claim of Biswadari rights because the claim on which the plaintiffs rely mainly is of their being co-sharers along with the vendors in the lands sold to resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC95; (1975)4SCC109; 1974(6)LC595(SC)
ORDERKhanna, J.1. Perumal Perumal alias Thankachan (41) was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mavelikkara for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Varkey John alias Kunjukutty (42) and was sentenced to death. On appeal and reference the Kerala High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. The accused thereupon came up in appeal to this Court by special leave. The leave was however, restricted to the question of sentence only.2. The prosecution case is that the accused had collected money in his village for the construction of a bund. When the construction of the bund became no longer necessary, the accused, returned the money to some of the persons from whom he had collected the same. Kunjukutty deceased had also paid money to the accused in that connection, but despite the demands made by Kunjukutty the accused did not return the money paid by Kunjukutty. As Kunjukutty had been making demands for the return...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1991; 1975(0)BLJR205; (1974)2SCC514; [1975]1SCR590; 1974(6)LC484(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This litigation which began in the year 1937' has come up for consideration before us in this appeal and we are not sure that this is the end. In that year one Dhirendra Nath Banerjee filed a suit for partition and allotment of his 3 annas 3 pies share cut of 16 annas in 32 villages and a 4 annas share in another village in the Hazaribagh district of Bihar. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in 1939. Appeals against the preliminary decree were dismissed in 1943 and in 1945 the present appellant (he is now dead and his heir has been added as party) purchased Banerjee's share and he was added as a co-plaintiff in 1947. In 1950 the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force and all these villages vested in the Slate of Bihar on 8-9-1952 in pursuance of a notification issued under that Act. In consequence the State of Bihar was added as a party some time in 1952. A commissioner was appointed to effect a division of properties and he submitted his report in Marc...
Tag this Judgment!