Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Dular Pandey And Anr. vs Nanda Budhai And Anr. on 8 March, 1938

Chhotey Lal And Ors. vs Jhandey Lal And Anr. on 10 March, 1972

17. Smt. Kaushalya the widow of Chhangey died in 1932. At that time, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 was in force. Under Section 25 (1) thereof a brother was a preferential heir to a brother's son. See Dular Pandey v. Nanda Budhai, 1938 All LJ 585 = (AIR 1938 All 396) (FB). Hence Chhiddu would inherit the one-third share till then held by Smt. Kaushalya. In this view, Chhiddu was entitled to a two-third share while the plaintiff had a one-third share in the holding. In regard to the house, the rules of Hindu Law would continue to apply. In accordance with the rule of survivorship, the interest of Chhangey would pass to both the other surviving members of the family, namely Chhiddu and the plaintiff Jhandey Lal. On this basis, they both had a half share in the house.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chhangu Aheer And Ors. vs Dukhi Aheer on 3 March, 1965

In Dular Pandey v Nanda Budhai, 1938 All LJ 585. (AIR 1938 All 396 (FB) ) the question referred for decision to the Full Bench was whether upon the death of the widow of an occupancy tenant the holding would devolve under Section 25 (1) or Section 25 (2) of Act III of 1926. There an occupancy tenant died while the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901 was in force He was succeeded by his widow under Section 22 of that Act. The widow died after the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 had come into force and the question arose whether the tenancy devolved upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant in accordance with the table of succession for occupancy tenancies or whether the tenancy devolved upon the heirs of the widow under Section 25 (2) of the 1926 Act. That was a case in which the widow who succeeded to the holding after the death of the last male tenant died in 1931 when the Act III of 1926 was in force It was held that the succession was governed by Section 25 (1) of the 1926 Act, provided the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant was proved to have shared in cultivation with him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Har Narain Singh And Anr. vs Nand Ram Singh And Ors. on 4 November, 1938

9. It appears from this passage that the appellants counsel relied solely on the age given by Anand Ram in the previous suit of 1932. The Court found that that age was not a reliable piece of evidence. There was therefore nothing left on which the two appellants challenged the finding of the trial Court and apparently the lower Appellate Court meant that the finding of the trial Court as to sharing in cultivation should stand. There is therefore a finding of fact against the appellants that the plaintiffs did share in the cultivation of Mahabir Singh and accordingly even if Section 24 of Act 3 of 1926, is applied to the plaintiffs, they satisfy the criterion in the Proviso of that Section and are entitled to succeed to the occupancy tenancy of Mahabir Singh in question. In view of this finding of fact, it is perhaps not very necessary to discuss the correctness of the legal argument of counsel for the appellants. But we may briefly mention our view. Learned Counsel relied on the Full Bench ruling in Dular Pandey v. Nanda Budhai (1938) 25 A.I.R. All. 396. He claimed that the principle of that ruling would apply to the present case. Now in the present case there was an occupancy tenant Mahabir Singh who died in the year 1882 while Act 12 of 1881 was in force and under Section 9 of that Act on his death the succession to his property devolved as succession to landed property, that is to say as he was a Hindu the personal law, that is the Hindu law, applied and his widows held the limited estate of a Hindu widow. On their death in the year 1900 his daughter, Mt. Ram Anandi succeeded to the limited estate of a daughter under the Hindu law. Now Act 2 of 1901 came into force and Section 22 made provision for the succession to an occupancy tenant but no reference is made to the case of an occupancy tenant who had died before the Act. Further, Section 22 of that Act does not confer any right of succession on a daughter. In 1926 United Provinces Act 3 of that year was passed and there is a table of succession in Section 24 but that table also does not grant any right of succession to a. daughter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1