Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Dadu Dayalu Maha Sabha vs Mehant Ram Niwas Chela Mahant Jamna Dass ... on 8 May, 2007

Nujumudeen vs Sadanandan on 5 July, 2007

5. One of the cardinal tests is as to whether this prayer for declaration of easement was available to the plaintiff to be urged in O.S No.282/1996. Further question is when did the cause of action to file O.S.No.162/2009 arise and is it after the disposal of O.S.No.282/1996?. The plaintiff relies on the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (AIR 2008 S.C 2033) whereas the defendants rely on Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) Vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and another (AIR 2008 S.C 2187). Several other decisions are also placed before me to buttress the contentions of either parties.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Gundappa vs Mr Puttaswamaiah on 11 December, 2009

In the case of DADU DAYALU MAHA-SABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST) Vs. MAHANT RAM N11/i/AS ,4/vt:1".2i'ivti?*t}%iEi=2 (AIR 2008 sc 2187), the plaintiff had feted permanent injunction on basis of"'his«.leg'_al _entrtl_em'ent succeed to gaddi. The suit wa»s_dism(isse'd_--,','by, thVeT'"'Frial.,V Court and First appellate rmasng' t.hla_t ij~t;fali'h't:tr was' not in possession of suit propie't't§/g_:on"'t,he date"of*s4uit. High Court reversed the co4nCu'i'renvt1w'iVfandlgirtrgs. '--..On appeal, the Supreme Court'r_evefsVed"~the: of High Court Upholding ,tl*I<-f'firi:l7tlltr?9S fI¢.ClCrr,d~:-'*1, ,t_ii,al,and_ first _a_.DDe.ll.ate , Courts,,._The..,_rel'i1e:f ..of--_pe_rma'rr--en.t'°injunction was refused. Obsei'u?atlCi:': vita:'fhow.e've:r,"~-made that, plaintiff may file a suit for po-sgsessioh so advised. The plaintiff filed a suitfifor p.osses'sio.nvwhAi,=:h was dismissed. The question was vresf}'u,d_icata would apply to such suits in view of llthelhgpex:f;'o_urt"observation in the earlier suit. Apex Court in the seeorrdll round of litigation has held as follows:--
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A N Gowda - Full Document

Rama vs State Of U P And 7 Others on 11 February, 2020

In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Tehsil- Gola, District- Gorakhpur/respondent no.3, it is stated in paragraph 9 that against the illegal encroachers of Araji No.81 namely Ram Niwas, Ram Khelawan and Mangal cases were initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in the court of Tehsildar, Gola, District Gorakhpur as Case No.T201805310701242 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ram Niwas), Araji No.81M/0.003 hectare, Case No.T201805310701244 (Gram Sabha Vs. Ram Khelawan), Araji No.81M/0.004 hectare, Case No.T201805310700809 (Gaon Sabha Vs. Mangal) Araji No.81M/0.003 hectare. The aforesaid cases were decided under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 vide its order dated 24.07.2018. By the aforesaid order illegal encroachers were evicted from the land in question by imposing damages.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Padia - Full Document

Vijay Kumar @ Vifai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 27 March, 2023

As per the aforesaid comments, after proper spot inspection it was found that on Gata number in question there are some illegal encroachments, therefore, appropriate exercise under Section 67 (1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been taken registering six cases against the illegal encroachers bearing Computerized Case No.T-202208300700070 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Niwas), Case No.T-202208300700068 (Gaon Sabha vs. Smt. Ilayachi), Case No.T-202208300700069 (Gaon Sabha vs. Daya Ram), Case No.T-202208300700067 (Gaon Sabha vs. Ram Aasre), Case No.T-202208300700071 (Gaon Sabha vs. Tribhuvan) and Case No.T-202208300700072 (Gaon Sabha vs. Neeraj). The next date has been fixed for 05.04.2023.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document
1