Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:CHETAR SEN JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT:ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE III, DEHRADUN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07/08/1992 BENCH:THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH:THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1991 1992 SCR (3) 769 1992 SCC (3) 760 JT 1992 (4) 450 1992 SCALE (2)151 ACT:U.P. Urban Buildin...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:OMBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ETC.ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 975 1992 SCR (3) 697 1993 SCC Supl. (2) 64 JT 1992 (4) 576 1992 SCALE (2)105 ACT:Educatio...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT Vs. RESPONDENT:I.M.PATEL AND CO.DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1992 BENCH:MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH:MOHAN, S. (J) RAY, G.N. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1762 1992 SCR (2) 914 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 621 JT 1992 (3) 614 1992 SCALE (1)1313 ACT:Income Tax Act, 1961 :Secti...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:BALWANT SINGH AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1992 BENCH:[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] ACT:Limitation Act, 1963:Article 137-Excess land beyond terms of decree-In execution proceedings by mistake recorded by way of symbolical possession-Applic...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT:SINGER COMPANY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07/05/1992 BENCH:THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH:THOMMEN, T.K. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 998 1992 SCR (3) 106 1992 SCC (3) 551 JT 1992 (3) 198 1992 SCALE (1)1034 ACT:Arbitration Act, 1...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD.Vs. RESPONDENT:UMA SHANKAR SHARAN AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT18/08/1992 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 1222 1992 SCR (3) 892 1992 SCC (4) 196 JT 1992 (4) 590 1992 SCALE (2)209 ACT:Bihar and...

Judges: K Singh, P Sawant

15 October, 1992·1. The appellants and the respondents before us are the followers of Shri Swaminarayan Sampraday. Shri Abji Bapa was a staunch follower of the said Sampraday. During his lifetime, Abji Bapa enunciated his own views which were respected by number of his followers who came to be known as Bapa Panthis....

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:MOHAN LAL TRIPATHI Vs. RESPONDENT:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAE BAREILLY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992 BENCH:SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH:SAHAI, R.M. (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 2042 1992 SCR (3) 338 1992 SCC (4) 80 JT 1992 (4) 363 1992 SCALE (1)1191 ACT:Uttar Pradesh Munic...

Judges: S Ranganathan, V Ramaswamy, Y Dayal

14 October, 1992·JUDGMENT v. Ramaswami, J.1. We granted leave and dismissed the appeals on 27.3.1992, Here are our reasons for the dismissal of the appeals. In GUT Bachan Singh and Ors. v. The Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur and Ors. Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9S53 of 1981 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High...

Judges: S R Pandian, S Mohan, S Bharucha

14 October, 1992·1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad allowing the Criminal Appeals Nos. 895, 978 and 979 of 1979 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 challenging their convictions recorded by the trial Court and also against the order of dismissa...