Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Pratap Singh @ Babu Ram & Anr vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 22 September, 1999

Mathai Mathai vs Joseph Mary @ Marykkutty Jopseph . on 25 April, 2014

On a careful reading of the recitals in Exh.A1, the mortgage deed and the aforesaid provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, i.e. the definitions of simple mortgage and usufructuary mortgage, wherein simple mortgage is defined as the mortgage where property is mortgaged without delivering possession of ac447907.doc 24 the mortgaged property to the mortgagee whereas usufructuary mortgage is defined as the mortgage where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee and further authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage- money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money. It is clear that in the present case, it is a simple mortgage and not a usufructuary mortgage. Here, it is relevant to mention the case of Pratap Singh @ Babu Ram & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri & Ors.2, wherein this Court held as under :-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

In Ram Singh and Anr. v. Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1968 All. WR 844, this Court held that the expression "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from psychological or imaginary injury; the person aggrieved must necessarily be one whose right or interest is adversely affected or jeopardised, and not who suffers from psychological or imaginary injury
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Gangumal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2009

Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pratap Singh Alias Babu Ram and another Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri and others6; Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) Vs. Arvind Kumar7; City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & others8; State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh and others9; Chandigarh Administration Vs. Laxman Roller Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd.10; Surender Singh Vs. Central Govt. and others11; Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another12; Abdulla Yusuf Vs. State of C.G. & others13; Indore Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Kundanlal14; Madan Mohan Kaushik Vs. State of M.P. and others15.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - D Mishra - Full Document

Mathai Mathai vs Joseph Mary @ Marykkutty Jopseph & Ors on 25 April, 2014

(d) Usufructuary mortgage - Where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called an usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagee an usufructuary mortgagee.” On a careful reading of the recitals in Exh.A1, the mortgage deed and the aforesaid provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, i.e. the definitions of simple mortgage and usufructuary mortgage, wherein simple mortgage is defined as the mortgage where property is mortgaged without delivering possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee whereas usufructuary mortgage is defined as the mortgage where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee and further authorises him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage- money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money. It is clear that in the present case, it is a simple mortgage and not a usufructuary mortgage. Here, it is relevant to mention the case of Pratap Singh @ Babu Ram & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri & Ors.[2], wherein this Court held as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Sriram & Others vs D.D.C Fatehpur & Another on 10 March, 2011

There are several other judgments in which this Court held that acquisition of co-tenancy rights is permissible by estoppel namely; Bhagan Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 1967 RD 396; Kalawati Vs. Consolidation Officer, Agra & Ors, 1968,RD, 45; Gaya Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation of Etah & Ors, 1976 (2) RD 142; Mewa Ram & Ors Vs. Shankar & Ors,1970 ALJ 1019 and Babu Singh & Anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1976 (2) ALR 203.
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Addagiri Gopal, S/O.Kristappa vs The State Of Andhra ... on 4 March, 2016

29. It is settled law that findings of fact rendered by statutory authorities on appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless such findings are perverse or based on no evidence, and this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence like the Court of Appeal and come to a different conclusion on the issue. (See Babu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Krishnanand v. Director of Consolidation )
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next