ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.K. VERMA, J.
Sri Bhagwan Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Ram Bharose Lal - Respondent
Civ. Rev. No. 605 of 1963. Civ. Rev. No. 806 of 1963, No. 104 of 1964, No. 120 of 1964, Misc. App. No. 239 of 1963, Misc. App. No. 240 of 1963 and Misc. App. No. 241 of 1963.
Decided On : 10-03-1964
JUDGMENT
S.K. Verma, J. - These are seven connected applications. The facts giving rise to them may be, briefly, summarised as follows. One Lala Luchman Das was the owner of Ram Chand Lachhman Dass Ice Factory and Ram Chand Lachhman Dass Iron Foundry, situate in Mohalla Free ganj, Agra. He died on the 28th of April 1956, leaving behind him two sons, Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar, and a widow, Rukmani Devi, step-mother of the two sons. On the 1st of April 1958 Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar executed a sale-deed in favour of Shri Bhagwan, son of Rai Bahadur Kan, haiya Lal in respect of the Ice Factory. On the 5th of April 1958 Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar executed another sale-deed in favouri of Shri Bhagxvan in respect of the Iron Foundry. On the 22nd of April 1958 the vendee, Shri Bhawan, executed two leases in favour of the vendors, Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar. All the four documents, that is to say, the two sale deeds and the two lease deeds, were registered on the same date, that is on the 24th of July 1958. On the Ist of May 1958 two documents were executed by Shri. Bhagwan in favour of the vendors undertaking to reconvey the Ice Factory and the Iron Foundry to the vendors if they paid the money within a certain specified period. Shri tri Bhawan treated the leases granted in favour of Ram Charosey Lal and Kailash Shankar to be manufacturing leases and he, therefore, served a six months' notice for ejectment upon them which was received on the 28th of August 1962. Six months would have expired in February 1963. In the meantime Rain Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar filed suit No. 155 of 1962 in the court of the Civil Judge, Agra, on the 6th December 1962. It was originally' filed against Shri Bhawan and Rukrriani Devi, the latter being a proforma defendant. The relief originally claimed was for a declaration that the sale-deeds and the lease deeds were mere sham transactions and the plaintiffs were not bound by the transactions. Subsequently, on the 13th of March 1963 an application for the amendment of the plaint was filed by Rain Bharoey Lal and Kailash Shankar. It was sought to make Shri Bhagwan's father, Rai Bahadur Kanhaiya Lal a defendant in the suit. A number of other changes were prayed for. The reliefs were also sought to be amended. On the 15th of March 1963 Shri Bhagwan filed suits Nos. 35 and 36 of 1963 against Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash hankar in the Court of the Civil k Judge, Agra, for their ejectment from Wit Ice Factory and Iron Foundry and also for arrears of rent. On the 5th of April 1963 Rain Charosey Lal and Kailash Shankar filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that suits, nos. 35 and 36 of 1963 should be stayed, as the matter in the said suits were directly and substantially in issue between the same parties in the previously instituted suit, No. 155 of 1962. On the 13th of April 1963 the learned Civil Judge of Agra granted e application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and stayed the trial of suits nos. 35 and 36 of 1963. Shri Bhagwan had, on the 26th of March 1963, applied for the appointment of a receiver over the Ice factory and the Iron Foundry. Objections were filed by Ram Bharosey Lal and Kailash Shankar. The application came up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge on the 13th of April 1963, after he had passed the order staying the proceedings in suits Nos. 35 and 36 of 1963. preliminary objection was taken to he effect that, as the trial of the two its had been stayed under Section 10 the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had no longer any jurisdiction Ito pass any order for the appointment of a receiver. The learned Civil Judge held that the order under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was no bar to his power to consider the application for the appointment of a receiver. This order passed on the same date, that is, on the 13th of April 1963. On 'the 11th of May 1963 the application filed by Ra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.