Nehal Ahmed
28 November 2010 at 16:32
what is a kabuliyat registered deed? How is it executed?
After getting a decree in a title suit case can an execution order be obtained to get delivery of physical possession? what is the procedure?
My father had got some settlement of land in lieue of rent receipt, i.e on payment of revenue to the zamindars. After the abolition of zamindari system in west bengal when I approached the revenue authorities to get the name recorded in the record of rights by showing the receipts given by the zamindar they refused on the ground that the land stands already vested to the state. Is there any remedy in law to have the same recorded? What should I do? Please suggest.
Raj solanki
17 November 2010 at 00:43
R/m. i have a case, brief fact of the case are:- on 28-04-2010 a team of N.D.P.L. raided at Mr. A's home and found a shop of tailor is closed on that day and they inspected the entire home and found nothing except that a shop in the front is closed and issued a show cause notice to the owner of the house that he is supply the electricity to the entire house and gave him 7 days time to him and thereafter he explain that he has already a commercial connection regarding this shop but the assessing officer issued a provisional order of assessment of Rs.77090/ and said to Mr. A if he has any objection then he may file withing 7 days his objection regarding this order. Mr. A filed a copy of the commercial bill along with his objection regarding this assessment of u/s 126(1) of electricity act. after received the objection the assessing officer closed the proceeding against Mr.A. but after the 4 months the N.D.P.D. issued bills as misuser/anauthorised user of Rs.1,44,001/-.
now my question is where i approach to rectified this bill ( N.D.P.L. has already refused to do anything.) please tell my where i will fill case against the N.D.P.L. and under which section or provision.
whether i can file suit for declaration and it will be maintainable or not.
Dr. Chandran Peechulli, Ph.D; FIE
01 November 2010 at 10:53
There is no iota of truth in the judgement even for the appeal as the honourable justice looked god-fearing but favoured the judgement of the lower court.
Land-grabbing Case. There is no sprinkle of truth by the respondents, in O.S.365/2004 & R.A.117/2009,Fast Track Court 2.
Dr.Chandran Peechulli to rghck.kar,
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL. thro. Registrar General rghck.kar@nic.in For URGENT attention please.
Shri. Jagadish Singh Keher,
H.E. The Chief Justice-High Court of Karnataka State,High Court Buildings,
Opp. to Vidhana Saudha, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
Thro. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka,
High Court Buildings, Bangalore-560 001.
Most Respected Sir,
I have for humble submission the following few lines, for which I am constrained to do so, encroaching your valuable and precious time of your good high office, to please intervene, for a good and just cause, thereby instil justice and fairplay in courts, so that the sanctity of the courts are maintained.
Subject: “Re-An Ex-serviceman(Senior Citizen)’s hard-earned “Land-grabbed”.
- case unreasonably dragged in courts with administrative deficiencies of liberal adjournments and aggrieved shunted between Chennai and Bangalore. In the process, the innocent only suffers. Land- grabbing case of a senior citizen & ex-serviceman, in Bangalore City Civil Court i.e. O.S.365/2004 & R.A.117/2009. Fast Track Court 2. There is no sprinkle of truth being seen, but for falsifying the truth, due to money and muscle power, to knock off my property.
Falsifying the truth by all means for gain, engaging specialised mentoring criminal- lawyers, for criminals to be tutored, availing the loop-holes, to suit the legal- process, “bringing injustice to the innocent common- litigant”, throws away the sanctity of the courts, from the minds of the common people. Therefore, it is high-time, the honourable court administration, realises this for an early corrective-action. Justice should come to the common man irrespective of whether; it is from the Lower or Higher or Supreme Court. Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves.
“The media shouldn't be a spectator to the true happenings of crime and injustice nor play the role of a messenger in reporting without verifying the real facts. – Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves
Common-man fails to get justice, because of inefficiency or corruption of prosecuting agencies. “Always aim at complete harmony of thought, word and deed by purifying one's thoughts and everything will go well.
Sai. R. Venkatakrishnan. Marine Waves.
I am a hard-working honest ex-serviceman, with national solidarity, whose hard-earned land grabbed and being totally harassed and humiliated to give-up, while fighting-out for justice, in Bangalore City Civil Courts, Fast Track 2, incurring since 2004, further unnecessary money, time and efforts in the old age of 64 years, it is like de-moralising the loyal citizen like me, who once came forward to sacrifice my life, to defend the nation from external threats. Now put in a state of severe mental stress/agony, for no fault of mine.
Self, an aggrieved ex-serviceman had approached various civil authorities in administration, law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help, but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP, Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A., Affidavit and received the Sales consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), but to harass and humiliate me, to make me fed-up and give- up. "Chief Justice of US Supreme Court John Marshall had once said: "Power of Judiciary lies not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the common man".
India though densely populated and though there could be cut-throat competition within the legal profession, these days the wrong trend, is to look for short-cuts, make fast money unlike the olden days, while no receipts given for fees, to poor litigants by advocates. Advocates therefore collude, betray and harm their clients as well, clients put in a state of confusion, as to which Advocate to be approached, for sincere professional services, to know of the loyalty-rating, since well read and travelled person also suffers, if so, what about the common man? The same aggrieved ex-serviceman had very bad experience in attending courts, shunting between Chennai and Bangalore after incurring around Rs.50,000 with a senior advocate who colluded with the opposite party and later was constrained, to changeover for economy, back to the honest legal-aid advocate, Sri. Revanna Siddappa, though with shorter experience for his age, not bold to express, who started off initially the case, and now resting with the almighty god if exists, and your kind help for justice, using your good and high office.
There is no sprinkle of truth by the respondents, who had purposefully concealed the name of Eraih, father of Eranna and Kempiah, this suppression of facts need to have been seriously viewed by the honourable court, orelse it causes grave concern to the aggrieved appellant and their family members. It is an admitted fact that one signatory of the three, in the irrevocable G.P.A., by name Krishnappa son of late Eranna and the other two signatories Thamayanna and Eranna sons of Kempiah were the bonafide vendors of the suit scheduled property, who formed the layout, sold and received the entire sales consideration of the 30 sites and the possession was delivered by the said karthas of the family, for the benefits of the said family members. The Respondents/Defendants, were therefore also beneficiaries during 1983-84, as such the respondents have delivered the possession by way of G.P.A., Affidavit and receipt of the Sales consideration. The Appellant is in possession till the year 2000 by way of G.P.A from 1983 and thereafter from 2000 by way of Sale Deed. The possession of the suit scheduled property is in continuous possession without any interruption till the illegal trespass and illegal occupation by respondents by pulling out the stone pillars installed and connected with barbed wires fencing all the sides of site 8 and 9. The Respondents had denied all this with an evil intention to knock off the property, since the appellant was residing at Chennai, rest of the site owners being local residents were not disturbed nor made a party, in the suit scheduled property. Further, delay tactics applied by adjournments, and involving me alone in the partition suit(O.S.341/04), thus all harassment and humiliation meted out by the appellant only. Justice informs only the counsel can talk, appellant has no say.
It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant /plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land, which was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, appears taken the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to further crimes. Please view photographs taken and submitted in the court-hall, during the initial stages, which would be self-explanatory as the proof of evidence. However, owing to their high-handedness by money and muscle-power they continued giving different versions, fabricated and frivolous statements, altering land records by cheating and misappropriation, with specialised advocates to falsify the truth. The real owner (aggrieved litigant) only knows, as to how his sentiments are hurt adding to expenditure to meet court hearings, efforts and further incurrence of money, since 2004. Lacks systematic enquiry and evaluation of evidence.
It is most humbly requested, to please use your good high office to give me justice so that my land is officially returned to me, thereby the culprits are severely punished orelse it is like encouraging the criminals to grow in society seeking easy and fast money. With respectful regards.
Yours respectfully,
(Sd.)
P. K. Chandran, * sent by postal-mail as well.
Complainant and owner of land.Ex-serviceman and Senior Citizen.
Submitted copy of written argument.
Relevant media news of D.G. of Armed Forces,New Delhi.
Set of photographs-taken when Tavarekare Police ASI., stopped the construction work and drove them away.
Address: “Kaustubha” B1/2, No.12th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090.
Phone: 098400-84216, e-mail: pkc484@yahoo.com
P.S. PLEASE HELP! HELP! EXPRESSING ALLEGATIONS – JUDGEMENT OF BLIND BIAS.
*AVAILING LEGAL-AID SERVICES. Judge never entertains, voice of the aggrieved litigant. Cannot afford expensive lawyer.
TO OPINE ON THE TRIAL COURT ORDER, WHICH IS APPEALED AS “ENCOURAGING CRIMINALS TO GROW & PILING-UP OF CASES IN COURT”, WHEN ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN NIPPED-UP, INITIALLY IF LAW & ORDER WAS AFFECTIVE.
3 attachments — Download all attachments
Chief Justice-Karnataka High Court..doc
41K View Download
Written Argument-FastTrack Court.Sep.2010 .doc
47K View Download
Land Grab.doc
49K View Download
Kumar Krishan Agarwal Advocate
18 October 2010 at 22:29
Dear Ld Counsel,
Please do remember that In Uttar pardesh order 39, Rule 3A has omitted. The matter is lying in Uttar Pardesh jurisdiction.
Matter begins:-
1. I (plaintiff's counsel) have contesting a civil suit(A) began in 2008 of property dispute into which
I got an Ex parte interim status quo order on my attached Interlocutory Application[A1] for stay under Order 39 Rule 1,2 in suit(A) for stopping the mischief work. But when The respondents not stopped their mischief work, I filed another Misc Civil Contempt suit(B)Order 39,Rule 2A before the same court for taking prompt action but in vain & no urgent relief I got in contempt case.
The Respondents filed W.S on suit(A) plaint paras. The Respondents also filed objections (i.e reply) about the interlocutory application[A1] attached in suit (A).
2. After that various interlocutory applications filed by plaintiffs for Amendment, Discovery and inspection, Damages claim, etc which all are pending in the court file and not come up for the first hearing till yet since 2008. The matter is on begin stage & The Issues not framed yet.
3. The Respondents Counsel pressing on the hearing of the interlocutory Application[A1] in suit(A) to decide first while all the Interlocutory applications of plaintiffs may be heard later after the arguments completed on interlocutory app.[A1].
4. The Misc Contempt Suit(B) is lying motionless/inactive and put in and out its file every-time on each dates in the large file bunch of suit(A) (like matter be tagged) and only the hearing of the Suit(A) has been taking place on each court dates while the Respondents also not get the noticed served in contempt matter till yet i.e suit(B) and avoiding intentionally.
Now my Question Are :-
Q1. Is there mandatory according to C.P.C that to first decide the Interlocutory Application[A1] first while the rest of the Interlocutory applications of plaintiff's will be heard lately or after-that application[A1].
Q2. Why The Misc Contempt Suit(B) not proceeds on each dates separately by Court and ignoring the contempt matter to be heard?
Q3. Is the Civil Contempt matter(B) will go in parallel with the suit(A) by court or The full and final hearing of the Suit(A) the court of law will begin the trial of the suit(B) ?
i.e How and when the trial be commenced of suit(B) /at what stage ?
JAIME
15 October 2010 at 16:05
I COMPLAINED AGAINST ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION TO THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR IN 2007 THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE MAMLATDHAR. THE MAMLATDHAR NEVER TILL DATE ATTENDED THE CASE AND THE RESPONDENT TILL DATE FAILED TO FILE HIS REPLY. THAT NO ACTION WAS FORTHCOMMING I SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR INTERVENER. APPEARS THAT THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR IS HAND IN GLOVES WITH THE RESPONDENT'S LAWYER. THE RESPONDENT LAWYER ATTENDED INTENDING TO ARGUE THE MATTER WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN REPLY TO MY INVERVENER APPLICATION AND TO HAVE MY APPLICATION DISMISSED. COULD I PLEASE BE GUIDED TO OBTAINING AN ORDER FOR INTERVENTION. THANKS VERY MUCH.
s.loganathan
11 October 2010 at 20:36
I am placing relevance to RBI guidelines on 'Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification & Provisioning Pertaining to Advances'
extract:
4.2.4 Upgradation of loan accounts classified as NPAs
If arreas of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of accounts classified as NPAs, the accounts should no longer be treated as non-perfofming and may be classified as 'standard' accounts.....
My account was declared NPA and I made subsequent payments to sevice the interest in full and brought the outstanding within the sanctioned limits. Should my account be classified as sub-standard and no longer be treated as non-performing? Or would it be right for the Bank to keep it as NPA?
Saptarshi Paul
03 October 2010 at 11:56
Mr x had installed one 5 Kva Generator Set in a Nationalised bank on monthly rent basis. :- 1/1/2006
@Rs. 3500/- Pm, on request the bank had enhanced MONTHLY RENT ON :- 4/7/2007 FROM :- Rs 3500/- to Rs 4500
There after an AGREEMENT MADE FOR 5 Yrs Term starting from 1/6/2007
Certainly the bank called for another quation to install 10kva genset , Mr X thought it as additional genset or standby genset and accordingly participated in the tender but the bank has disqualified his tender as the rate is higher.
Therafter bank as informed Mr X to TERMINATE SERVICE ON 28/6/2010
Therafter Mr x send LEGAL NOTICE SEND ON 30/6/2010 throgh his advocate as the agreemnent was for 5 years term then how can they terminate the service.
There after Bank Notice to Terminate Service on:- 9/7/2010 and Order to close services of gen set on 31/7/2010
Mr X filed title suit and also SUIT FILE ON 30/7/2010 UNDER ORDER 39 Rule 1 & 2
Temporary injuection was granted by Musnsiff-2
But later on the bank contested as in the agreement in last para it is mentioned as – “ bank has right to terminate service of generator at any time without giving any reason”
Court has given order in favour of Bank on the basis of following points :-
1. It’s a nationalized bank and if proper power is not supplied then transaction and customer of the bank will suffer.
2. Mr x had participated in the tender and as he lost the tender that is why he filed suit otherwise he should have objected before participating in tender
We had already argued on behalf of Mr x as follows :-
1. Government Companies or Public Corporations which carry on trade and business activity of State being State instrumentalities, are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such they are subject to the observance of fundamental rights embodied in Part III as well as to conform to the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In other words, the Agreement terms & conditions framed by them are to be tested by the touchstone of Article-14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the procedure prescribed by their Rules or Regulations must be reasonable, fair and just and not arbitrary, fanciful and unjust.
2. The 'audi alteram partem' rule which, in essence, enforces the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution is applicable not only to quasi-judicial orders but to administrative orders affecting prejudicially the party-in-question Rules of natural justice do no supplant but supplement the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the Rule of Law, which is founded in the Constitution of India, demands that it has to be observed both substantially and procedurally. Rule of law says that the power to be exercised in a manner which is just, fair and reasonable and not in an unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary manner leaving room for discrimination
3. Terms condition mentioned in the Agreement in Para-17 :- “…Bank reserved the right to terminate the agreement at any time without assigning any reason thereof…”
does not expressly exclude the application of the 'audi alteram parterm' rule and as such the order of termination of service of a which already agreed in Para – 1 of the agreement for 5years from 01.06.2007 and ending on 31/12/2011 cannot be passed by simply issuing a notice just before the 21days (9th july 2010) prior to the close of business on 31st July 2010 and without giving any hearing to the employee to controvert the allegation on the basis of which the purported order is made.
4. the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment relating to service condition, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly) spoke of unconscionable contract. That was a case relating to the particular clause in the service rule entitling the employer to terminate the services even of the permanent employees without giving any reason and by giving notice. It was held that such a clause is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act being opposed to the public policy. It was further held to be ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution of India. Such a clause in the rules was described by the Apex Court as a naked "hire and fire" rule and its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII clause so familiar to administrative lawyers.
But the learned court disagree our argument and gave judgement in favour of Bank
Now we like to make Appeal to the District Judge
Kindly Help me out by providing valuable suggestion in this regard
vinod bansal
28 September 2010 at 22:35
R/Experts
A shopkeeper(Lubricant Dealer)ordered for supply of lubricant amounting Rs. Two Lacs and whole payment was made in advance,now when shopkeeper(dealer)received delievery of lubricant,he found that lubricant is of very sub standard and cheap quality and it could not be sale in market.Now what is remedy available to dealer to take legal action against manufacturer who send this sub standard lubricant.Kindly suggest.Thanx
BHAVESH Y KAYASTHA
21 September 2010 at 18:16
WE HAVE ONE HOUSE PROPERTY IN OUR NAME BY GRANDFATHER'S WILL. NOW GRANDFATHER IS DEAD ALSO MY OUR HOUSING APPT. IS REGISTERED UNDER NTC ACT - IN GUJARAT STATE. NOW GOVT OFFICE IS SAID THAT CONCERED DEPT. IS CLOSED DUE TO NON AVAILIBILTY OF NTC ACT IN GUJARAT. NOW WE WANT TO TRANSFER OUR PROPERTY FROM MY GRAND FATHER'S NAME BUT THERE IS NO CHAIRMAIN & SECRETORY IN OUR SOCIETY HOW CAN WE TRANSFER OUR HOUSE IN OUR NAME
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Sub: Suit for specific performance
An Agreement of Sale is entered by father and son in favour of tenant’s wife already in possession. Before sale deed is executed by them, son got issued legal notice to the tenant (agreement holder) expressing sole ownership by virtue of will deed executed by his mother (original land lady now expired) in his favour.
The tenant’s filed “Suit for Specific Performance” making Father and Son as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 depositing the balance sales consideration in bank and filed the bank letter in court. The two sisters of D1 Got implied as D3 and D4 challenging the will.
Rent Control Case: In between the tenant file Rent Control case for depositing the rent since the landlord is in dispute. All the parties contested the case. But after some time the suit is dismissed for default, since the tenant has not pressed the case.
Over ruling the above documents the Original Suit was decreed in favour of Plaintiff (tenant) against D1 and D2 for executing the Sale deed for 50% of the suit property, failing which the court will execute the sale deed. The balance consideration deposit issued by the bank is not marked as exhibit by the plaintiff (tenant’s wife) and the court is silent about it in pronouncing the judgment, but this was clearly mentioned in plaint and was cross examined in evidence. The court also confirmed the balance 50% ownership to sisters by invalidating the alleged will. The sisters are not willing to sell the property.
Aggrieved by the Specific Performance decree, brother preferred an appeal and it is pending and the Appellate court granted interim stay till the disposal of final appeal. Now the stay is vacated.
Their after the tenants wife registered the 50% property of D1 & D2 by the court by depositing the balance sale consideration.
This property is part of the total property in partition suit. Now the partition suit is under compromise.
Now the questions are:
1. When the amount is already deposited in bank and the bank letter is deposited in court. Neither the court nor the party insisted for the same to bring it into record and registered the sale deed as per the lower court order. Is the court erred in this subject.
2. The tenant has filed a rent control case for depositing the rent in rent control, but not traced subsequently. This means is he under default of paying rent right from the date of A/S. As an agreement holder is not the owner of property in one aspect and tenant and his wife are separate party in eyes of law on the other aspect.
3. Is it possible to re-open the RC case dismissed for default and to file the suit for eviction?
4. Is the prospective landlord can withdraw the amount from bank against sale deed execution?
5. The tenant wife prefer no appeal against the order of the lower court either for registering the complete suit property or to for not paying the rent till the disposition of suit.
6. Paying rent till the sale deed is registered is one of the recital in Agreement of Sale.
Please advice.
Regards
Somnath