Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi (Dead) ... vs Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi And Ors on 15 September, 1998

Vanitaben D-O Natvarbhai Gordhan Patel vs Kamlaben Sukhabhai Mali on 13 August, 2025

We must also observe that the decision of this Court in Mahadeo [Mahadeo v. Shakuntalabai, (2017) 13 SCC 756 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 749] which had failed to notice the earlier decisions in Sangappa [Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi v. Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi, (1998) 7 SCC 294] and Jayamma [Jayamma v. Maria Bai, (2004) 7 SCC 459] and which is inconsistent with the decisions referred to hereinabove and what we have concluded, must be held to be incorrectly decided."
Gujarat High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Bequest. He Has vs Unknown on 10 December, 2010

In support of the argument, the executor first refers to a judgment reported at (1998) 7 SCC 294 (Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi v. Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi). The appellant before the Supreme Court (represented in the Supreme Court by his legal representatives) had made a claim asserting occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. During the pendency of the relevant application under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, he made a Will bequeathing his tenancy rights in the land in favour of a person who would not have been an heir in intestacy upon his death. Such applicant died before the application could be considered. The land tribunal examined the question whether the right to tenancy could have been the subject-matter of a bequest under a Will. On a construction of Section 21 of the relevant Act (which is not quoted in the report), the Supreme Court held that the provision did not permit any sub-division or sub-letting of the land by a tenant or the assignment of any interest thereunder. The court concluded that assignment of any interest in the tenanted land was invalid under the provisions of the relevant statute and a device or a bequest under a Will could not be said to fall outside the scope of the enactment; a 9 bequest under a Will would amount to an assignment and fall foul of the relevant provision.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Banerjee - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Biswajit Cha on 27 September, 2018

We find that in the decision of Asansol Durgapur Development Authority (supra), a Division Bench of this court took into account the ratio of the decision in Sangappa Kayanappa Bangi (supra) and held that Section 2 (1) of the West Bengal Government Land (Regulation and Transfer) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) would stand in the way of the writ petitioners therein to have any benefit under a Will since it was hit by the said Act. Unfortunately, the said judgement will not come to the aid of the appellants as the said Act had not come into operation for want of notification. The said Act came into operation on 4th March, 1997, but thereafter by issuing a Government order on 20th March, 1998, the operation of the said Act was kept in abeyance temporarily. Subsequently, an ordinance being West Bengal Ordinance No. 2009 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 27th January, 2009 which amended the said Act, inter alia, to the effect that the said Act would come into force on such date and in such areas as the State Government would by notification, appoint and different dates would be appointed for different areas. The West Bengal Government Land (Regulation and Transfer) Act was subsequently amended in 2009 and the amended Act was published in the Calcutta Gazette after it received the assent of the Governor. By the said amendment it was provided that the said Act would come into force on such date and in such areas as the State Government would, by notification appoint and different dates would be appointed for different areas. However, no such notification was ever published.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - S Sarkar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next