Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Malti Bai And Ors. vs Ramadhar Singh And Ors. on 30 September, 2000

Ymprakash & Anr. vs Nagar Palika Bilaua & Anr. on 27 September, 2022

In the judgment of this Court in the case of Chuamani and others Vs. Shri Ramadhar and others reported in 1991 RN 61 (D.B.), it has been categorically held that an entry made 7 by the Patwari in the remark column or any other column of a khasra or field book no presumption of correctness can be attached as per section 117 of the M.P. L.R.C. The Division Bench further held that the Patwari is not required to make any kind of entry in the khasra or field book under Chapter 9 of the M.P.L.R.C. In this view of the matter, even if any entry in column no. 12 is made by the Patwari in the khasra in favour of plaintiff, it would not mean that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Similarly, other cited judgments does not help the plaintiff's case because the said judgments are not relevant so far as the controversy in the present case is concerned.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D K Agarwal - Full Document

New vs Sumaliben on 29 March, 2012

11. It is of course true that steps for substitution are to be taken within the time prescribed and if such steps are not taken within the time stipulated, the proceedings or the suit abate on the expiry of such prescribed period. Under Section 166(3), as it originally stood, six months period was fixed for filing claim application and under the proviso the Tribunal had jurisdiction to extend the by 12 months. However, Section 166(3) has been deleted by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. After such deletion of Section 166(3), several Courts have taken the consistent view that there is no period of limitation for filing claim application and even the residuary clause under Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The aforesaid view receives considerable support from the decisions United India Insurance Co. v. Sarvati Devi 2001 (2) ACC 331 (All) ; Malti Bai v. Ramadhar Singh 2002 ACJ 1623 (MP); Latabai Bhagwan Kakade v. Mohanmed Ismail Mohd. Saab Bhagwan 2002 ACJ 407 (Bom) (DB) and Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Ors. . If the claim application can be filed at any time, it goes without saying that the period contemplated for filing substitution petition can be at least liberally extended. When the claim application itself can be filed at any time, no prejudice would be caused by permitting the claimants to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner/Respondent No. 1 even after long lapse of time."
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document

Ms. United India Insurance vs Vijaya on 23 December, 2005

11. It is of course true that steps for substitution are to be taken within the time prescribed and if such steps are not taken within the time stipulated, the proceedings or the suit abate on the expiry of such prescribed period. Under Section 166(3), as it originally stood, six months period was fixed for filing claim application and under the proviso the Tribunal had jurisdiction to extend the by 12 months. However, Section 166(3) has been deleted by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. After such deletion of 166(3), several Courts have taken the consistent view that there is no period of limitation for filing claim application and even the residuary clause under Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The aforesaid view receives considerable support from the decisions reported in 2001(2) ACC 331(All)(DB) (United India Insurance Co. V. Sarvati Devi), 2002 ACJ 1623 (MP)(DB) (Malti Bai V. Ramadhar Singh), 2002 ACJ 407 (Bom)(DB) (Latabai Bhagwan Kakade v. Mohammed Ismail Mohd. Saab Bhagwan) and AIR 1996 SC 2155. If the claim application can be filed at any time, it goes without saying that the period contemplated for filing substitution petition can be at least liberally extended. When the claim application itself can be filed at any time, no prejudice would be caused by permitting the claimants to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner/Respondent No.1 even after long lapse of time.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document
1