Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing P.R. Nayak vs Bejen Dadiba Bharucha on 13 April, 1951

Khalil Ahamad Khan vs Malka Mehar Nigar Begum And Ors. on 27 October, 1953

125. It was further urged by learned counsel for the appellant that Section 46 cannot affect the jurisdiction of the High Court, though it may affect the jurisdiction of the lower courts and in this connection reliance was placed upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in -- 'P. R. Nayak v. Bejan Dadiba Bharucha', AIR 1951 Bom 403 (Z1). There is a fallacy in this argument.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 12 - V Bhargava - Full Document

K. Sreenivasachari vs Custodian Of Evacuee Property And Secy. ... on 27 July, 1999

11. The learned Counsel for the respondents first referred to the decision in P.R. Nayak v. B.D. Bharucha, , which is a Division Bench judgment presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice Sri Chagla. In the said case the Court held that under Section 12 of the Act the power conferred upon the Custodian cannot be exercised with regard to lease granted or agreement made prior to 14-8-1947. It is also pointed out that before the Custodian can requisition the assistance of Section 4 of the Act, he must satisfy the Court that there is any provision in the Act which entitles the Custodian to eject a person in possession of the evacuee-property which possession is not unauthorised possession. It may be stated that this decision was rendered before amendment of Section 12 of the Act. The amendment came into force on 6-5-1953 and by the amendment, the Legislature enlarged the scope of powers of the Custodian. Before the amendment only the property which was allotted or leased or agreement had been granted or entered into after 14th day of August, 1947 was capable of being dealt with by the Custodian. The leases etc., entered into prior to 14th day of August, 1947 were beyond the reach of the Custodian's power. After amendment, the Legislature enlarged the powers and stated that whether the allotment, lease or agreement was granted or entered into, before or after the commencement of the Act, the powers of the Custodian could be exercised subject to the proviso which was also added. Therefore, this judgment though apparently is in favour of respondent No.2 is not applicable in view of subsequent amendment in 1953.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A S Bhate - Full Document

(O&M) Maktulo vs Ram Parkash on 12 November, 2025

15. In the present suit, the plaintiffs initially claimed adverse possession over the entire land. However, later on relinquished their rights against custodian by amending their pleadings on 24.08.1988. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot claim ouster of the defendants prior to the date of order of partition. The Lower Appellate Court thus has rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Reliance is being placed upon ratio of law laid down in the case of P.R. Nayak vs. Bejen Dadiba Bharucha, 1951 AIR (Bombay) 406, Budhi Singh vs. Sewa Singh, 1971 AIR (Himachal Pradesh) 29, Maqsood Alam vs. Mossamat Bibi Husna and another, 1971 AIR (Patna) 31, Sayed Salahuddin Ahmad vs. Janki Mahton and others, 1957 AIR (Patna) 549, Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 685, Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah and others, 2019(3) R.C.R.(Civil)12, Nagabhushanammal (D) by LRs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document
1