Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Jhapsi Sao And Ors. vs Musammat Bibi Aliman And Ors. on 1 December, 1925

Upendra Pratap Narain Sahi vs Dulhin Ishwarwati Kuer And Anr. on 16 April, 1948

In Japsi Sao v. Bibi Aliman, 7 P. L. T. 170 : (A.I.R. (13) 1926 pat, 263), Das and Rosa JJ. held that the allotment of certain lands by the revenue authorities as bakasht lands does not estop the cosharer holding direct possession of the said lands under Section 22 (2), Bihar Tenancy Act from continuing to keep them in his khas occupation on payment of rent to the cosharer to whose takkia they have been allotted. Section 22 (2), Bihar Tenancy Act, confers a privilege on the purchasing cosharer which is in derogation to the common law right of the other cosharers, and that privilege subsists and is not taken away by a partition amongst the cosharers and the allotment of the purchased land to the takhta of one of the other proprietors. Section 22 (2) imposes a limitation upon the rights of the cosharers for the benefit of the purchasing cosharer, and there is no reason why this limitation should be removed by reason only of a partition taking place. With this decision I respectfully agree.
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sk. Saokat Ali & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2023

9. It is further submitted by Mr. Pan, learned Advocate for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal &b Ors. vs. Aziman Bibi & Ors. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 710 that in relation to an acquisition process under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 a question came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court if award was not made within two years after publication of Section 6 notification under Act I of 1894, in view of the proviso to Section 11A the acquisition proceeding would lapse or not.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Raja Kirtya Nand Sinha Bahadur And Anr. vs Ram Lal Dube And Ors. on 5 July, 1926

5. It is now contended in second appeal that the partition did not affect the rights of the Banaili Raj in this land except to this extent that the Srinagar Raj became entitled to the entire rent of 81 bighas instead of a proportionate rent in the entire 155 bighas; that the Banaili Raj is still in possession through the defendant fourth party, and that they have been recognised by the Srinagar Raj who have accepted rent from them subsequently to the partition. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in Jhapsi Sao v. Bibi Aliman 93 Ind. Cas. 1001 : 7 P.L.T. 170 : 5 Pat. 281 : A.I.R. 1926 Pat.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1