Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Anupam Pictures (P.) Ltd. on 9 September, 1996
5. Hari Prasad Agarwal v. Abdul Haq AIR 1951 Pat. 160,
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)Chandra Nath Mukherjee vs Chulai Pashi And Anr. on 1 December, 1958
In support of this contention Mr. Chakravartty has relied on certain observations in Hari Prasad Agarwalla v. Abdul Haq, which is as follows:
Ramnarain Pasi vs Sukhi Tiwary on 16 January, 1956
In Hari Pd. Agarwalla v. Abdul Haq, AIR 1951 Pat 160 (K), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court as follows:
Mahadei Haluai vs Ram Krishna Singh And Anr. on 22 February, 1960
In my opinion, although the three decisions referred to above do not cover the facts of the instant case, the principle is quite clear that if a lease is executed by the lessor alone after amendment of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and the lessee is put in possession, the latter can invoke to his aid the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This, of course, is subject to the interpretation of the proviso to Section 53A.
Mt. Tapesara Kuer vs Kalap Rajwar And Ors. on 13 January, 1956
9. The last contention of Mr. Singh is that as no oral settlement was pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint, and when the plaintiff's definite case in the plaint was that he got settlement under a document, and when that document was sada patta and not a registered document, the settlement was illegal and no title had accrued under this sada settlement to the plaintiff. He strongly relied on Hari Prosad Agarwalla v. Abdul Haq, AIR 1951 Pat 160 (C). First of all he relied on the following observation of his Lordship B. P. sinha J :
Administrator Of District Board vs Shri Deonath Sahay on 6 August, 1969
In any case, whether the entire area is actually under cultivation or not, the fact that the defendant had come into possession of the entire area stands admitted so far as the present case is concerned and, as such, the principles laid down in the case, referred to above, have no application to the facts of the present case. It follows, therefore, that the contention that in any view of the matter the defendant cannot be held to have any interest in a part of the suit lands, namely, the area of 7 bighas, which according to D.W. 1 is not cultivated, is quite untenable.
Bastacolla Colliery Co. Ltd. vs Bandhu Beldar And Anr. on 23 March, 1960
26. Mr. Chatterji has relied upon Hari Prosad v. Abdul Haq, AIR 1951 Pat 160. This case is not helpful on the question of the effect of payment and acceptance of rent; but I may mention that, following (1879) 4 AC 324, Sinha, J. has observed that a person who enters into possession on the basis of a void lease is a trespasser, and, if the lessor, who has a right to enter on the land from the moment of the lessee's entry, does not enforce his right within the period of limitation, his right to recover is barred.
Smt. Chandrakantaben, Wife Of ... vs Vadilal Sapalal Modi And Ors. on 30 March, 1989
17. Mr. Dholakia, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents contended that since the chawl has remained in actual possession of the tenants, Bapalal or the family must be held to be in symbolic possession in 1946 and for that reason the defendant No. 6 also can not be treated to have come in actual possession of the property, which could have permitted her to prescribe a title in the chawl. The learned Counsel further argued that since the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff were actually collecting rent from the tenants they also must be held to be in joint possession and, therefore, the Defendant No. 6 can not succeed as she has not been able to prove their ouster. The other members of the joint family will also be entitled to rely on this aspect so as to successfully defend their right. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Patna High Court in Hari Prasad Agarwalla and Anr. v. Abdul Haq and Ors. ; in support of the argument that for adverse possession actual physical possession is necessary and mere constructive possession is not sufficient. We are afraid, it is not possible to accept the argument.
Smt. Chandrakantaben Etc vs Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Others on 30 March, 1989
17. Mr. Dholakia, the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents contended that since the chawl has remained in
actual possession of the tenants, Bapalal or the family must
be held to be in symbolic
246
possession in 1946 and for that reason the defendant no. 6
also can not be treated to have come in actual possession of
the property, which could have permitted her to prescribe a
title in the chawl. The learned counsel further argued that
since the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff were actually
collecting rent from the tenants they also must be held to
be in joint possession and, therefore, the defendant-no. 6
can not succeed as she has not been able to prove their
ouster. The other members of the joint family will also be
entitled to rely on this aspect so as to successfully defend
their right. Reliance was placed on the decision of the
Patna High Court in Hari Prasad Agarwalla and another v.
Abdul Haq and others, A.I.R. 1951 Patna 160; in support of
the argument that for adverse possession actual physical
possession is necessary and mere constructive possession is
not sufficient. We are afraid, it is not possible to accept
the argument.
Trustees Of Motidas Beragi Sadhu Ratlam ... vs Ramjatan Ramprasad Sonar And Ors. on 4 October, 1962
The decision in AIR 1957 Pat 24 (supra), was dissented from in AIR 1958 Madh Pra 319, Iqrar Ahmed v. Hulkey.
1