Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Atul Chandra Lahiry vs Sonatan Daw on 13 March, 1961

Dharsibhai Panachand Shah vs Smt. Samaratbai Lilachand Shah on 15 December, 1975

7. Mr. Pratap, the learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that not only did the learned District Judge in the present case adopt what he described as a test laid down in that case, but paraphrased it to mean what he called 'substantial' test, also relevant for the purpose of deciding, whether it was a permanent structure, though it was nobody's case in the trial Court that the water storage and the kitchen platform were 'substantial' structures intended to be enjoyed permanently as interpreted by the learned District Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surya Properties Private Ltd. And Ors. vs Bimalendu Nath Sarkar And Ors. on 19 June, 1963

9. I shall now take up the first question for consideration. The question whether a particular construction is a permanent structure or not is a question which depends on the facts of each case and on the nature and extent of the particular construction and the intention or purpose for which the construction is made may also be a relevant consideration in certain circumstances, but no hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to this matter. (See Atul Chandra Lahiri v. Sonatan Daw, . In the present case only certain questions have been referred and the entire case or the facts thereof are not before us. So it is not possible for us to give any answer to the question "whether a room with 2" thick brick built waits and a corrugated iron sheet roof is a permanent structure within the meaning of Clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act."
Calcutta High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Allahabad Bank vs Sourendra Nath Shaw And Another on 13 August, 1996

In Atul Chandra v. Sonatan Daw, a Division Bench of this Court observes that what is permanent structure within the meaning of clause (p) of Section 108 of the T.P. Act will depend on the facts of each case and there can be no rigid or hard and fast rule or formula to define or construe a permanent structure and that the test of removability or demolition is not an invariable test because even permanent structures like buildings or walls can be demolished or removed and that the question whether a structure is permanent or not, is appropriate under clause (p) but is not so under clauses (m) and (o) of Section 108 of the T.P. Act. In paragraph 12 of the said decision it has been observed thus :--
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Kempraj vs Krishnappa And Ors. on 13 September, 1995

In Atul Chandra Lahiry v. Sonatan Daw , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had an occasion to deal with the purport of the words "permanent structure" in Clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was held therein that the word "permanent" used in Clause (p) of Section 108 appears to have been used in contra-distinction to what it temporary, that if a structure is intended to be there only temporarily, the statutory embargo did not apply and if on the other hand, the intention was to enjoy the structure permanently and the structure was also of a substantial structure. It was also observed therein that the test of removability of demolition is not an invariable test because even permanent structures or removed and that it would be a mixed question of act and law in each case, whether the extent or degree of construction or erection was such as to make it partake of the character of the permanent structure or not.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1