Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Faqir Baksh vs Murli Dhar on 13 January, 1931

Smt. Abnash Rani Suri vs Smt. Santosh Chaudhary on 5 September, 2011

"Ownership of the property which is the subject­matter of tenancy is certainly a larger estate than the tenancy itself and naturally larger than the sub­tenancy. If the sub­tenant acquires the entire interest of the owner in the whole of the estate forming the subject­ matter of sub­tenancy, the sub­tenancy merges into ownership and the estate of sub­tenant stands enlarged into that of a full owner. The sub­ tenant cannot be the owner and the sub­tenant both at the same time. Of course, the situation would have been different if the sub­tenant would not have acquired the entire estate of the owner or the ownership interest in the entire estate forming subject­matter of sub­ lease, as was the case in Badri Narain Jha an others vs. Rameshwar Dayal Singh and others, AIR 1951 SC 186 or in Shaikh Faqir Baksh v. Murli Dhar and others, AIR 1931 PC 63.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Rajeswari And Ors. vs S.P. Palaniappan And Ors. on 28 October, 1983

On behalf of the appellants, three contentions have been urged before me. It was first contended that the purchase by the defendant from Hanumantha Rao will not bring about a merger of the leasehold and the vendee's interest because the purchase was only of a half-share. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decision of the judicial Committee in Faquir Baksh V. Murli Dhar (1931)61 M.L.J. 261 : L.R. 58 I.A. 75 : I.L.R. (1931) 6 Luck. 197 : A.I.R 1931 P.C. 63. As a proposition of law there can be little doubt that, if a person is a tenant of the whole of a property, the acquisition by him of ownership in a portion thereof will not of itself extinguish the leasehold interest.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Vinay Verma vs Kamlesh Tiwari on 18 January, 2023

"6. Thus, the ingredients are that two immediate estates should come into the hands of the same person at the same time and it must be rights in the whole of the property. A merger is prevented if there is an intermediate estate outstanding with another at the relevant time. Obviously, the taking of an assignment of a fraction of the reversion, or the rights of a co-owner landlord, does not and cannot bring about a determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. That a lease is not extinguished because the lessee purchases a part of the reversion was laid down by the Privy Council in Sk. Faqir Bakhsh vs. Murli Dhar (1931) 58 IA 75. Their Lordships after setting out the terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act quoted with approval (at IA p. 78) the statement of the law made by the trial Court in that case that for a merger to take place, "the fusion of interests required by law is to be in respect of the whole of the property."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sureshchandra vs Ramchandra Arora on 23 July, 1987

In Shaikh Faqir Baksh v. Murli Dhar, AIR 1931 PC 63, the case was under Section 111, Transfer of Property Act and it was held that the plaintiff and defendant being pro indiviso joint proprietors of a property, plaintiff's tenancy right is not merged in the property right though the plaintiff was a lessee also of a part of the property before acquisition of proprietary right by both.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.N. Sheopuri vs Fab India Overseas P. Ltd. on 4 July, 2011

6. Thus, the ingredients are that two immediate estates should come into the hands of the same person at the same time and it must be rights in the whole of the property. A merger is prevented if there is an intermediate estate outstanding with another at the relevant CS(OS) No.246/2009 Page 22 time. Obviously, the taking of an assignment of a fraction of the reversion, or the rights of a co-owner landlord, does not and cannot bring about a determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. That a lease is not extinguished because the lessee purchases a part of the reversion was laid down by the Privy Council in Sk. Faqir Bakhsh v. Murli Dhar. Their Lordships after setting out the terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act quoted with approval (at IA p. 78) the statement of the law made by the trial court in that case that for a merger to take place, ―the fusion of interests required by law is to be in respect of the whole of the property‖.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 9 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal And Others vs Bibi Husn Bano And Others on 3 May, 2005

Of course, the situation would have been different if the sub-tenant would not have acquired the entire estate of the owner or the ownership interest in the entire estate forming subject matter of sub-lease, as was the case in Badri Narain Jha & Ors. v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh & Ors. AIR 1951 SC 186 or in Shaikh Faqir Bakhsh v. Murli Dhar & Ors. AIR 1931 PC 63.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 14 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003

In Shaikh Faqir Bakhsh Vs. Murli Dhar & Ors., AIR 1931 PC 63, the plaintiff was holding on lease a portion of the entire property. Subsequently, plaintiff and defendant became pro indiviso joint proprietors of the property by purchasing shares from the earlier owners. The lease was subsisting when the shares were bought by the parties. In a suit for accounts filed by the plaintiff it was held that the plaintiff's rights under lease of a part do not merge in his rights as joint proprietor of the whole of the property and as between the parties the plaintiff held a valid and subsisting lease.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 717 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal And Others vs Bibi Husn Bano & Ors on 3 May, 2005

6. Obviously, the taking of an assignment of a fraction of the reversion, or the rights of a co-owner landlord, does not and cannot bring about a determination of the lease in terms of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. That a lease is not extinguished because the lessee purchases a part of the reversion was laid down by the Privy Council in Faquir Baksh vs. Murli Dhar (58 Indian Appeals 75). Their Lordships after setting out the terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act quoted with approval the statement of the law made by the trial Court in that case that for a merger to take place, "The fusion of interests required by law is to be in respect of the whole of the property."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 52 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 Next