Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1217; (1978)3SCC188; [1978]3SCR789
1. These two appeals by special leave are from the common judgment of the Karnataka High Court. In the year 1945, a suit for partition and possession was filed by the original respondent No. 2 (since deceased and his heirs substituted). In the said suit all the co-sharers were impleaded as defendants 1 to 7. The 4th respondent in these appeals was defendant No. 1 and the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were defendants 5 and 6. Each branch had 1/7th share. A preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court on December 13. 1954, which was eventually confirmed by the High Court in a second appeal decided on January 16, 1963. After the passing of the preliminary decree in this year 1954, in accordance with the law prevalent in the State of Karnataka (then known as Mysore State), an execution case being L-D. 117 of 1956 was filed by the plaintiff-decree holder and the appellants in the Court which had passed the preliminary decree for final partition and possession; the same had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1239; 1978(26)BLJR354; [1981]129ITR440(SC); (1978)3SCC383; [1978]3SCR761; 1978(10)LC381(SC)
1. It will be easier, with the help of the following pedigree to understand the point involved in this appeal :Khandappa Sangappa Magdum Hirabai (Plaintiff) | ______________________________________________________________ | | | | | Gurupad Biyawwa Bhagirathibai Dhundubai Shivapad(Deft. 1) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4)1 (Deft. 5) (Deft. 2) Khandappa died on June 27, 1960 leaving him surviving his wife Hirabai, who is the plaintiff, two sons Gurupad and Shivapad, who are defendants 1 and 2 respectively, and three daughters, defendants 3 to 5. On November 6, 1962 Hirabai filed special civil suit No. 26 of 1963 in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli for partition and separate possession of a 7/24th share in two houses, a land, two shops and movables on the basis that these properties belonged to the joint family consisting of her husband, herself and their two sons. If a partition were to take place during Khandappa's lifetime between himself and his two sons, the plaintiff w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1174a; (1978)2SCC591a; [1978]3SCR770; 1978(10)LC387(SC)
1. These two appeals are by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras against a common judgment in A.S. No. 114 and A.S. No. 194 of 1958.2. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No. 152 of 1955 Under Section 92 of the CPC for removing one Nagu Reddiar, the first defendant, from the trusteeship of the suit charities and for framing a scheme for the said charities. The trial court found that the two charities in question were public trusts and comprised all the alienated properties except item 7 of plaint-A Schedule of the trust properties. The Trial Court found that B-Schedule properties were bequeathed for performance of Puja in the Samadhi and for feeding the Agathies and Paradesies in the Matam and that the Samadhi could not be separated from the Matam and therefore the dedication of the Schedule properties in favour of the Matam and Samadhikoil is invalid in law. The Court ordered the removal of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1251; (1978)3SCC435; [1978]3SCR736
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, by which the order of the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, convicting the appellant Under Section 302 Penal Code and sentencing him to death for the double murder of two persons in Village Takhat Hazara, was confirmed.2. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows :A First Information Report was lodged on September 9, 1973 at about 7.30 a.m. by one Shyam Singh in Police Station Sadul Sahar, to the effect that when he in the morning went to the Gurdwara of his village at about 7 a.m. for brooming and burning incense, as usual, he found three persons, one of whom, Mada Singh, lay groaning on a cot. The informant went back to the village, contacted Jagar Singh, Hari Singh, Sukhdarshan Singh, Amar Singh and Ors., and in their company returned to the Gurdwara. It was then detected that Kartar Singh son of Hari Singh lay dead on a cot with injuries on his head. The other two persons, Mada Singh and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1244; 1978(26)BLJR349; 1978CriLJ1266; 1978(2)ELT613(SC); [1978]114ITR231(SC); (1978)3SCC113; [1978]3SCR729; 1978(10)LC369(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 19th November 1976 by which the High Court quashed the notice dated 27th July 1972 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and also quashed fresh adjudication proceedings started by him under the provisions of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appeal lies within a very narrow compass and turns upon the interpretation of the order passed by the appellate authority Under Section 128 of the Act. On 27th February 1969 the respondent Pratap Rai was detrained at Jabalpur by the Customs authorities while he was travelling by the Bombay Janta Express. On being searched as many as 23 wrist watches on which no custom duty was paid were recovered from his person. Thereafter adjudication proceedings Under Section 122 of the Act were commenced by the Assistant Collector of Customs which culminated in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30th June, 1969 by whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1326; [1978(37)FLR352]; (1978)IILLJ158SC; (1978)3SCC18; [1978]3SCR716; 1978(10)LC348(SC)
1. The appellant, Tejinder Singh Sandhu, and respondents 2 and 3 were serving initially as Class III Officers but were recruited directly as Class II Officers in the erstwhile State of Patiala and the East Punjab States' Union, ('Pepsu'). After the reorganisation of Punjab and Pepsu, they were absorbed in the Punjab Agricultural Service, Class II. In the seniority list of Class II Officers, respondent 2 was shown at serial No. 30, respondent 3 at serial No. 39 and the appellant at serial No. 40. On August 2, 1965, appellant and respondent 3 were promoted on an ad-hoc basis as Deputy Directors of Agriculture, a post borne on the cadre of Class I Service. The appellant took charge of that post on August 4, 1965 while respondent 3 took charge fourteen days later on August 18, 1965. The ad-hoc promotions were made for a period of three months or until such time as the appointments could be made on a regular basis.2. Respondent 2 was working at the material time in the Punjab Agricultural U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1385; [1978(37)FLR70]; (1978)IILLJ185SC; (1978)3SCC11; [1978]3SCR721; 1978(10)LC354(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22nd March, 1968 and arises in the following circumstances.2. The appellant was an employee of the Bangalore Transport Company and entered service as far back as 1944. On 28th September, 1956 the Bangalore Transport Service Act was passed by which the Bangalore Transport Company was taken over by the Government. Nearly a month later, that is on 1st October, 1956, the Company became a department of the Government and at that time the respondent was working as Junior Assistant in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100. On the reorganisation of the States on 1st November, 1956 various employees from other regions were transferred to the Mysore Road Transport Corporation and various units were amalgamated with the Mysore Government Transport Department. In view of the new dispensation it became necessary to bring about a radical change in the pay structure of the employees. Ultimately a settlement was arr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1277; 1978(26)BLJR280; (1978)IILLJ84SC; (1978)3SCC366; [1978]3SCR708; 1978(1)SLJ591(SC); 1978(10)LC395(SC)
1. This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution from a Judgment dated July 28, 1966 of the Patna High Court, dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for impugning an Order of his removal from Government service.2. The facts are as follows :3. The appellant, Nand Kishore Prasad, was appointed as a ministerial servant by the District Magistrate, Shahabad, in his office at Arrah on June 16, 1930. He was confirmed in service in the year 1933.4. In 1950, the appellant was transferred to Sasaram as a Bench Clerk in the Court of Shri R. Singh, Judicial Magistrate. His normal duty was to aid and assist the Court by putting up cases for hearing and disposal.5. In April 1952, he was transferred from Sasaram to Buxer as an Election Clerk. On September 16, 1954, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram, summoned the appellant and asked him to explain the out-standing fine of Case No. 886-C/104 T.R. of 1950 (The State v. Sar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1073; (1978)2SCC581; 1978(10)LC452(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J. 1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution read with Section 110 of the CPC arises out of a suit, being Title Suit No. 82 of 1952 instituted on July 8, 1952 in the Sixth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, District 24-Parganas, West Bengal, by Kumud Bala Dasi, the original plaintiff, against the appellant, who is the Official Receiver of the High Court, as the principal defendant, and Birajabala Debi, widow of Probodh Chandra Chatterjee, as proforma defendant, for declaration that she had permanent kayami Mourasi Mukarari Title to the suit land measuring 6 Cottas, 4Chhataks and 4 Sq. ft. situate on Barrackpore Trunk Road within District 24-Parganas, West Bengal and that the possession of the appellant thereon was illegal and wrongful as well as for Khas possession of the said land after demolition and removal of the structures and shop rooms standing thereon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1282; 1978CriLJ1120; (1978)2SCC491; [1978]3SCR691
1. The short point that arises in this appeal is as to whether the Criminal Court has power to release property seized by the police from a person and reported to the Special Judge, but not yet produced before the Court. We think the court has such power and that seems to be the scheme of the Code itself.2. Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with disposal of property. There is a trichotomy in the sense that where property has been seized by the police, but not produced before the court, the power to dispose it of is covered by Section 457. Where property has been seized and/or otherwise produced before the court, the manner to dispose of such property is governed by Section 451. If the question of disposal arises after the enquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded, the disposal of the property involved in the case is governed by Section 452. We need not go elaborately into the implications of each provision since we are not called upon to do so in the present cas...
Tag this Judgment!