Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Maharaja Vizinagram vs Chhango Kurmi on 8 April, 1910

Kishore Singh And Ors. vs Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 2 July, 1918

In Maharaja of Vizianagram v. Chhango Kurmi 6 Ind. Cas. 834 : 7 A.L.J. 555 a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he was a tenant-at-will was brought in the Revenue Court, which decided that Be was a tenant but not a tenant-at-will of the plaintiffs, and subsequently a suit was brought in the Civil Court for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he was a trespasser; it was held that the Revenue Court having determined the nature of the defendant's tenancy and the class to which he belonged, a suit in the Civil Court could not be maintained. It was equally in the present case that the Revenue Court has determined the nature of the defendant's tenancy and he is clearly liable to ejectment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Bahadur Singh And Anr. vs Kishore Singh And Ors. on 2 July, 1918

In Maharaja of Vizianagram v. Chhango Kurmi (1910) 7 A.L.J., 555, a suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he was a tenant-at-will was brought in the Revenue Court, which decided that he was a tenant but not a tenant-at-will of the plaintiffs, and subsequently a suit was brought in the Civil Court for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that he was a trespasser; it was held that, the Revenue Court having determined the nature of the defendant's tenancy and the class to which he belonged, a suit in the Civil Court could not be maintained. It was equally in the present case that the Revenue Court has determined the nature of the defendant's tenancy and he is clearly liable to ejectment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ghissa Lal vs Ram Autar Lal on 16 April, 1912

3. Here the question decided by the Revenue Court was, whether a person lawfully in possession of land as mortgagee must give up possession to his mortgagor when the latter becomes entitled to ex-proprietary rights in the land, i.e., becomes ex-proprietary tenant of the land. That is not a question reserved exclusively fur the Revenue Courts; therefore, Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act does not apply. It was contended that all questions arising between a landlord and his tenant relating to the land are reserved exclusively for the Revenue Courts. Section 167 does not so provide, nor, so far as I am aware, has such a rule of law been laid down in any case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1