Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Daya Kishen vs Mohammad Wazir Ahmad on 2 July, 1915

Jalesar Shau vs Raj Mangal And Ors. on 27 April, 1921

5. First with regard to the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad (1915) 13 A.L.J. 833 our brother Fafiq, whose judgment was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal and who held that the planting of a grove by permission of the zamindar on an occupancy tenancy does not necessarily change the nature of the holding or enable the tenant to transfer the trees so planted, pointed out in his judgment that it had been held in the lower courts that the land and the grove in suit had not been granted for planting a grove, but was an occupancy holding upon which the tenant had planted the grove. The distinction may be a fine one in fact, but it is substantial in its results.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jalesar Sahu vs Raj Mangal And Ors. on 27 April, 1921

5. First with regard to the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833 our brother Rafique, whose judgment was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal and who held that the planting of a grove by permission of the Zemindar on an occupancy tenancy does not necessarily change the nature of the holding or enable the tenant to transfer the trees so planted, pointed out in his judgment that it had been held in the lower Courts that the land and the grove in suit had not been granted for planting a grove, but was an occupancy holding upon which the tenant had planted the grove. The distinction may be a fine one in fact, but it is substantial in its results.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mubarak Husain vs Sagar Mal And Ors. on 18 January, 1938

In 1915 in Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad (1915) 2 A.I.R. All 444, in Letters-Patent appeal it was held that planting a grove by an occupancy tenant on his holding with the permission of the zamindar does not change the nature of the holding from an occupancy tenancy to a grove land and the tenant has no right to sell the trees so planted nor can the trees be sold in execution of a decree against the tenant. The learned single Judge, with whose opinion, the Division Bench agreed, remarked:
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Chandar vs Tiwari Hub Lal And Anr. on 5 February, 1935

In Daya Kishan v. Mohamad Wazir Ahmad 1915 All. 444, it was held that the planting of a grove by an occupancy tenant on his holding with the permission of the zemindar does not change the nature of the holding from an occupancy tenancy to grove-land and the tenant has not got the right to sell the trees so planted, nor can the trees be sold in execution of a decree against the tenant. This ruling undoubtedly is in favour of the appellant, and if this ruling had been followed by this Court, we consider that it would be a strong reason to allow this appeal. But the ruling has not been followed by this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Syed Abdul Rauf vs Raju Muhammad Shah And Anr. on 6 July, 1922

It is really a mishomer to call plot No. 140 a grove. On the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court, these trees were, planted presumably with the consent of. the zemindar on the occupancy holding by the tenant. The tenant can, therefore;' acquire no transferable right in the trees standing on the occupancy tenancy. This view is supported by the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gulab vs Bhagwan Das And Ors. on 31 October, 1923

2. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ganga Dei v. Badam 5 A.L.J. 99 : 3 M.L.T. 194 : A.W.N. (1908) 51 : 30 A. 134, and the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833. Both these cases, however, are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases trees had been planted on agricultural holdings which had existed from before. When the holdings themselves were not transferable, they could not become transferable, after the planting of trees. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1