//
archives

Rajasthan High Court

This tag is associated with 15 posts

Civil Contempt Petition No.359 of 2011, whereby the alleged contemnors were held to be guilty of contempt of court for having violated the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008.-since in order to comply with the findings in M. Nagaraj’s case and Suraj Bhan Meena’s case, necessary data was required to be collected, in the absence of which it was not possible for the State and its authorities to act in terms of the observations made in M. Nagaraj’s case and in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra). 44. Accordingly, we are of the view that despite the fact that there has been delay on the part of the State and its authorities in giving effect to the observations made in the two aforesaid cases, there was no willful or deliberate intention on their part to defy the orders of this Court. The very fact that the Bhatnagar Committee was appointed indicates that the State and its authorities had every intention to implement the aforesaid observations, though the progress of such implementation has been tardy. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding the Appellants guilty of contempt of Court for purported violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010, while disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.8410 of 2008. Consequently, the judgment and order under appeal has to be set aside. 45. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the aforesaid judgment, but with the further direction that the State and its authorities act in terms of the Report of the Bhatnagar Committee, in accordance with the decision rendered in M. Nagaraj’s case and in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra), within two months from the date of communication of this judgment and order.

|REPORTABLE |   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2504-2505 OF 2012 1 2 Salauddin Ahmed & Anr. … Appellants   Vs.     2 Samta Andolan … Respondent       J U D G M E N T     ALTAMAS KABIR, J.   1. These appeals … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O.41, r. 1- Preliminary decree in partition suit-Death of some parties- Redistribution of shares-No fresh preliminary decree drawn up-Appeal without copy of preliminary decree-If maintainable. Practice-If court could pass more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit. Hindu law-Agarwala Jains–Share given to mother in partition suit-Right, whether absolute or limited. Will-Circumstances showing genuineness of. =The appellant filed a suit for partition against his father, mother, brother (the -respondent) and the adopted son of a predeceased brother. The parties were Agarwala Jains. A preliminary decree was passed specifying the shares of the parties, but before the final decree could be passed, the father died., and soon after, the mother also died. The respondent claimed the father’s share under a will executed by the father in his favour, and the appellant claimed the mother’s share under a sale deed executed by her in his favour. The appellant challenged the genuineness of the will, and the respondent contended that as she was only a limited owner, the mother was not entitled to sell her share. The trial Court held in favour of the appellant on both contentions, and passed an order redistributing the shares, but did not prepare a fresh preliminary decree. The respondent appealed to the High Court but was not in a position to file a copy of the decree with the appeal. Even when time was granted by the High Court and the respondent moved the trial Court for framing a formal decree, the trial Court refused to do so. The High Court disposed of the appeal holding that (i) the appeal was maintainable without a copy of the decree; (ii) the varying of the share,, by the trial Court, in the preliminary decree already passed by it was a decree in the circumstances of the present case, and the respondent could appeal from it; (iii) the mother was not entitled to sell her share and so the sale in favour of the appellant was invalid; and (iv) the will in favour of the respondent was genuine. In appeal to this Court. HELD:(i) Normally a copy of the decree must accompany the memorandum of appeal. But the defect in the filing of the appeal in the present case was not due to any fault of the respondent and it could not be held that be should be deprived of his right of appeal, simply because the trial Court did not do its duty. [157 D, H] Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 918, referred to. (ii) So far as partition suits are concerned, if an event happens after the preliminary decree and before a final decree is passed, and a change in the shares is necessitated, the trial court can and should pass a second Sup. C.1.167-11 154 preliminary decree correcting the shares; and, if there is a dispute in that behalf the order of the court deciding that dispute and making a variation in the shares specified in the preliminary decree already passed is a decree in itself which would be liable to appeal. A partition suit is not finally disposed of till the final decree is passed and the court has jurisdiction to decide all disputes that may arise due to the death of some of the Parties after the preliminary decree and before the passing of the final decree. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decree in a partition suit if circumstances justify it and if it is convenient and advantageous to do so. [158 E, F, H; 159 A, D-E] Kasi v. Ramanathan Chettiar, [1947] 2 M.L.J. 523, Raja Peary Mohan v. Manohar, (1923) 27 Cal. W.N. 989 and Parshuram v. Hirabai, A.I.R. 1957 Bom. 59, approved. Bharat Indu v. Yakub Hasan, (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 159, Kedernath v. Pattu Lal, I.L.R. [1954] Luck, 557 and Joti Parshad v. Ganeshi Lal, A.I.R. 1961 Punj. 120, overruled. (iii)In the absence of a custom to the contrary a Jain widow takes a limited interest in her husband’s estate similar to the widow’s estate.A custom., however, to the contrary has been proved Agarwala Jains that the widow takes an absolute estate in the required property of her husband, with full powers of alienation. But there is no such custom entitling her to an absolute estate in ancestral property. [160 D-E] In the present case, the share allotted to the mother by the preliminary decree was out of ancestral property, and therefore, the appellant could not take advantage of the sale of that share by the mother, and it must descend equally to the three surviving parties namely, the appellant, the -respondent and the adopted son of the deceased brother. [160 E-F] Tulsiram Khirchand v. Chunnilal Panchamsao Parwar, A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 391, referred to. (iv) The will was duly executed by the father in favour of the respondent. It was genuine, and the testator was competent to will away not only his self-acquired properties, but also the share he got out of the joint family property by severance of status and specification of shares. [162 C-F] The will was executed after the partition suit had been filed and after a preliminary decree, by which shares were allotted to the members of the family, had been passed. Though the testator was 70 years old at the time of the execution of the will -and though the respondent took a prominent part in its execution, the testator lived for 7 years after its execution and he was mentally and physically competent at the time of its execution. Further, the will was registered. The will was also natural, because,, (a) the testator was disgusted with the conduct of the appellant; (b) he was pleased with that of the respondent; (c) he did not give any share to the adopted son of his deceased son, because, the adopted son was the natural son of the appellant; and (d) he did not provide for his wife for she had already been allotted one-fifth share by the trial Court’s preliminary decree. [161 C-H; 162 A] =1967 AIR 1470, 1967( 3 )SCR 153, , ,

PETITIONER: PHOOLCHAND AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: GOPAL LAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1967 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BACHAWAT, R.S. RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1967 AIR 1470 1967 SCR (3) 153 CITATOR INFO : RF 1972 SC 414 (32) ACT: Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O.41, r. 1- Preliminary decree in partition suit-Death … Continue reading

transfer petition, child visitations rights, exemption from personal appearance in criminal cases to the old couple accused.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.5213 Of 2010 Deepti Bhandari … Petitioner Vs. Nitin Bhandari & Anr. … Respondents WITH TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.856-857 OF 2010 O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each … Continue reading

a news published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 04.04.2005 regarding the manufacture and sale of synthetic milk- Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, vests power in the State Government to appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspectors, and it is within the prerogative of the Government to determine the number of Food Inspectors required to be appointed and therefore the High Court could not have issued a mandamus to the State Government to make appointment of as many as 34 Food Inspectors. = “The court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organization. This Court has time and again pointed out that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative function and it involves economic factors. Hence the courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of a post.”

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8523-8524 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOs.12308-12309 OF 2007) The State of Rajasthan & Ors. …… Appellants Versus The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur through its Registrar General …… Respondents J U D G M E N T … Continue reading

the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (for short `Relief fund’) under the Rajasthan Chief

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7333 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.12721/2009] State of Rajasthan & Ors. … Appellants Vs. Sanyam Lodha … Respondent J U D G M E N T R.V. RAVEENDRAN J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a decision … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,003 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com