Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing Mool Chand vs Kedar (Deceased) By Lrs. & Ors. on 28 January, 2000

Bhaiya Ram And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 24 April, 2000

In Mool Chand v. Kedar (2000) 2 SCC 528 : (AIR 2000 SC 745), the Hon'ble, Su preme Court has categorically held that the basic rule of interpretation of the Statute is that in order to find out the determination of the legislative intent, if the language of the Statute is plain and simple, it must be considered literally and paradoxical results must be accepted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 54 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sachish Chandra Jain And Anr. vs Shri Bhagwan And Ors. on 5 August, 2002

In the case of Mool Chand v. Kedar (AIR 2000 SC 745) it is held that the effect of the death of a female before Hindu Succession Act came into force and provisions of Section 172 (2) (a) (i) and Section 172 (2) (a) (ii) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was considered. Section 172 provides succession in the case of a woman holding an interest inherited as a widow, mother, daughter. Section 172 provides that holding shall devolve upon her and she will be entitled to life estate only in the holding, the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male intermediary of tenant aforesaid; and she was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to the holding absolutely the holding shall devolve in accordance with the table mentioned in Section 174. Apex Court held that since death took place before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, succession shall be governed by Section 172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jitendra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 July, 2025

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that consolidation authorities have rightly considered the provisions contained under Sections 171 to 175  of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and directed that according to the provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, petitioner/ Jitendra as well as private respondent- Sharda Devi (daughter of Nageshwar) will be entitled to be recorded in place of deceased Shanti Devi in respect to chak No. 151. He further submitted that chak no. 151 was recorded in the name of four sons of Charittar as well as Shyam Dulari (daughter of Charittar) and after death of Shanti Devi, petitioner/ Jitendra had fradulently got his name recorded under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act but after remand order passed in revision, consolidation authorities have rightly ordered to record the name of petitioner/ Jitendra as well as private respondent (Sharda Devi) in view of the provisions contained under Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which requires no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that one revision filed by one Savita Devi was dismissed as withdrawn. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition filed by petitioner should be dismissed. He submitted that there is no illegality in the initiation of proceeding by private respondent under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules on the basis of final orders passed in the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that no interim order was operating in the Writ B No. 2525 of 2024 filed by petitioner. He submitted that Writ B No. 318 of 2025 filed by petitioner is also liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the following judgement of this Court in support of his argument:- (I) 1998 R.D. 328 Mool Chand Vs. Kedar and Others
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Chandan Devi vs Additional Collector /Dy. Director Of ... on 20 November, 2013

Supreme Court in Mool Chand v. Kedar, (2000) 2 SCC 528, held that Smt Kaushalya Devi being the daughter of Musai, after his death inherited his property and after the coming into force of the U.P. ZA Act, became a bhumidhar. When she died the devolution would be governed by clause (a) of Section 172(2). This clause (a) is further split into two sub-clauses, sub-clause (i), under which, if under the personal law she had only a life estate then her property would devolve upon the nearest surviving heir in accordance with the provisions of Section 171. On the other hand if it falls under sub-clause (ii) then if under the personal law she held property absolutely, the devolution would be governed by the table mentioned in Section 174.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1