Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC537; (1978)2SCC116; [1978]2SCR839
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by special leave by the original plaintiff questions the correctness of the decree dismissing her suit for specific performance of contract for sale of premises No. 88-A, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta, entered into between her and deceased Smt. Paribala Das on 8th February 1956 for a consideration of Rs. 46,000/-. The agreement of sale, Ext. I, recites that Rs. 1001/- were paid as earnest money and subsequently the defendant vendor received a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff intending purchaser. Various terms of agreement would be referred to in the course of this judgment. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of the contract alleging that even though she is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract the defendant No. 1 has not completed the transaction and, therefore, a decree for specific performance should be made in favour of the plaintiff. In this suit she impleaded vendor defendant No. 1 and her son...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC506; (1978)2SCC398; 1978(10)LC195(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. This is an appeal by certificate. Some of the plaintiffs in a partition suit are the appellants, Dhup Singh and 30 others filed a suit against Ran Singh and 48 others for partition of a part of abadi deh pana Karan in Mauza Lodpur, Tclisil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, measuring about 49, 000 sq. yards. The plaintiffs claimed that they were co-sharers in the suit lands in proportion to their respective shares in the khewats, The suit as contented by defendants 8 to 14 only through defendant number 10 Ghuni Lal. It proceeded experts against the other defendants. The contesting defendants, inter alia, took the plea that no decree for partition could be pasted as in a prior suit for partition for the abadi Land of pana Karan, the abadi land in the present suit was excluded form partition by the mutual consent of the parties and consequently the suit was not maintainable. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated the 21st January, 1953 on the view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC515; (1978)2SCC373; 1978(10)LC203(SC)
N.l. Untwalia, J. 1. In or about the year 1964 or 1965 certain lands situated in the city of Surat were sought to be acquired by the Government of Gujarat for the purposes and the benefit of the employees under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. Several notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894-hereinfter referred to as the Act, were issued. Objection under Section 5A of the Act were filed in relation to several of the proposed acquisitions. They were heard by officers especially appointed as Collectors by the State Government in accordance with Section 3(c) and reports were submitted by them to the State Government. After considering the reports, the Sate Government issued notifications under Section 6 of the Act. Several Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the proposed acquisitions & the notifications under Section 5A and 6, on various grounds. The grounds of attack were mostly common but in some of the cases the a questions we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1202; (1978)3SCC135; 1978(10)LC146(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The dispute here centers round a Will dated 18.9.1960 executed by a widow, Smt. Chandi Rani, whereby she bequeathed all her moveable and immoveable property in favour of Girdhari Lal Manucha, respondent herein. The logatee-propounder is the grandson of the brother of the testatrix, which the appellants herein, who contest the factum and validity of the Will, are the sons of her husband's brother. 2. Reversing the finding of the Civil Judge, Faizab the High Court has held that the Will was duly executed by Smt. Chandi Rani and is valid.3. Mr. Iyengar, appearing for the appellants, contends that there were a number of suspicious circumstances surrounding this Will, which had Bet been satisfactorily explained by its propounder. Such circumstances enumerated by the Counsel are:(1) At the time of making the Will, the testatrix was virtually living in confinement under the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC933; 1978(26)BLJR144; 1978CriLJ925; (1978)2SCC386; [1978]2SCR820
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In these appeals by special leave the common and important question of law which falls for our determination is whether the non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955-hereinafter called the Rules, framed under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, vitiates the trial or the conviction recorded under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. In Rajal Das Guru Namal Parnanani v. The States of Maharashtra : 1975CriLJ254 the conviction of the appellant was set aside on the ground :-The Public Analyst did not have the quantities mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The appellant rightly contends that non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions but also injustice. The quantities mentioned are required for correct analysis. Shortage in quantity for analysis is not permitted by the Statute. This, larger Bench was constituted for exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC941; (1978)1SCC669; [1978]2SCR814; 1978(10)LC153(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal by special leave. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the Bombay High Court maintained the dismissal in appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The facts are a bit complicated. For the disposal of the present appeal, only a few of them need be stated in a narrow compass. One Ambabai, wife of Chintamanrao Ghatge purchased lands mentioned at items 1A to IE in the plaint on the 3rd of December, 1896 in the name of the deity Shri Vitthal Rakhumai Dev. Lands at IF, 1G and 1H were, endowed by Ambabai to the deity by a deed of endowment executed in January or February 1905. Under this deed of endowment, one Pandurang Babaji Pawar was appointed as the Vehivatdar (Manager) and one Bala Appa Yadava was appointed as a servant of the deity. On the 1st of June, 1905, however, Ambabai executed a sale deed in respect of all the suit properties except property IE in favour of Pandurang and Bala. On, the 23rd of June, 1907 Ambabai executed a second Will and in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC765; (1978)2SCC209; [1978]2SCR809; 1978(10)LC171(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. The plaintiff landlord had purchased a shop by a sale deed dated 17th May, 1965, and then terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner by a registered notice in July, 1965, coupled with a demand for arrears of rent. Upon the failure of defendant to comply with the notice to quit a suit was filed against the defendant-petitioner on 23rd November, 1965. During the pendency of that suit the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, was made applicable by a notification dated 30th March, 1967, to Rajgarh town where the shop is situated.2. The defendant petitioner had denied having executed any rent note in favour of Bhurdas, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff landlord who had also notified the defendant petitioner of the sale in. favour of the plaintiff by a registered notice dated 25th June, 1965, received by the defendant petitioner on 29th June, 1965. The defendant petitioner pleaded having taken the shop from another individual, Mahant Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1318; (1978)2SCC361; [1978]2SCR805; 1978(10)LC151(SC)
S. Murtuza Faizal Ali, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal by special leave and is directed against the judgment dated 15th May, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court upholding the decree passed by the District Judge in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of sale :2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly stated thus.3. The defendant Jagdish Chander purchased the lands in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 6000/- by a sale deed dated 12th July, 1958 including the Bhumidhari land from Ata Ilahi Khan who was the proprietor of the said lands. The sale deed in favour of the defendant Jagdish Chander contained a stipulation that the vendor would be entitled to repurchase the property for the consideration mentioned in the sale deed within five years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. On 18th December, 1958 Ata Ilahi Khan sold his right of repurchase of the land under the sale deed above mentioned to Bir Narain, Mangal Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1094; (1979)1SCC21
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants (defendants 2 to 7) in all the courts below In a suit for specific performance are the appellants by special leave before us.2. The first defendant (4th respondent) on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,300/- executed a sarliat in favour of the test plaintiff with condition that the first plaintiff would enter into possession of the said plot in lieu of the Interest of the debt After some time the fourth respondent gave up Ms residence and moved to a different place and while so doing expressed the desire that he Wanted to dispose of the plot aforesaid and made a request to the plaintiff that he should purchase the same. The first plaintiff had already entered into possession and occupied the land. After sometime the 4th respondent settled with the plaintiff for the transaction of sale In respect of that plot for a sum of Rs. 1,700/-. On 2-6-1964 he received a sum of Rs. 100/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. On 3-6-1964 the 4th respondent ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1084a; 1978CriLJ997; (1978)1SCC626
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated October 4, 1972 by which the conviction of respondents Babboo, Ram Prakash said Purushottam under Section 302/34 I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment for life have been set aside and they have been acquitted. It has been reported by Superintendent Jail, Bareilly, that respondent Babboo died in civil hospital, Aligarh, on August 19, 1975 and the appeal has abated as against him.2. Tulsi Prasad (P. W. 1) and his son Chandrapal (deceased) were residents of village Nagla Nai, at a distance of about tour furlongs from police station Hathras, In Aligarh district. It is alleged that Chandrapal, who was about 18 or 19 years old, went towards his plot on the eastern side of the village 'abadi' on July 26, 1968, at about 9 p.m. The respondents were also there at that time, and there were two other persons who, had muffled their faces. It is alleged that there was some altercation...
Tag this Judgment!