Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 298 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 2 November, 1976

Ravindra Kumar Verma And Ors. vs State Of U.P.Through ... on 4 December, 2024

88. The Court also considered in detail the provisions of Section 4, Section 6 and Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and discussed the law as laid down in State of UP Vs. Smt. Ram Sri; and Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. (supra)5 with regard to Section 117(1) and Section 117(6) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. After considering Section 9, together with the provisions of Rule 26 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952, which provided that the site of a well or building along with area appurtenant thereto situated within the limits of an estate shall be deemed to be settled with the owner of the said well or building, and that he shall have a heritable and transferable interest in the site, and that he shall not be liable to ejectment on any ground whatsoever ,and that he shall have right to use the site for any purpose whatsoever subject to existing rights to easement, and that succession shall be governed by personal law; the Division Bench held that -
Allahabad High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Smt. Mulla Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2023

Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] this Court held as under:- (SCC pp. 296-97) "31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155] :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Kamla Bai Thr. Lrs Pandit Patil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2023

"31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155], while interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has many meanings and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. ...............
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Chiranji Lal Kumhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2023

97) "31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155] : (1977) 1 SCR 1072] while interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has many meanings and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning....
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Sh. Naresh Kumar Anand Huf,, Jalandhar vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, ... on 15 January, 2019

It was thus averred by the Ld. A.R that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Singh (supra) was absolutely out of context of the issue under consideration in the present appeal before us. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that now when the assessee was in receipt of lease rent in respect of the land and the office building/shed that was being used by the lessee viz. M/s Larsen & Toubro in the course of their business of running a RMC plant, thus the lease income had rightly been shown by the assessee as its "Income from House property". On the basis of his aforesaid submissions, it was the claim of the Ld. A.R that the Pr. CIT misconceiving the facts and the settled position of law had wrongly dislodged the well founded view of the A.O that the assessee had rightly shown the lease income under the head "Income from House property". It was thus averred by the Ld. A.R that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chiranji Lal Kumhar on 19 May, 2025

36. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. This Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP, (1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072, while interpreting section 117(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratto Bai Kachhi on 19 May, 2025

36. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. This Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of UP, (1977) 1 SCC 155 : (1977) 1 SCR 1072, while interpreting section 117(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Samundri Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2022

(2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] this Court held as under:- (SCC pp. 296-97) "31. The "vesting" in sub-section (3) of Section 10, in our view, means vesting of title absolutely and not possession though nothing stands in the way of a person voluntarily surrendering or delivering possession. The Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 155] : (1977) 1 SCR 1072] while interpreting Section 117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 held that "vesting" is a word of slippery import and has many meanings and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning....
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Smt. Gyanwati And Others vs Sarseti Devi And Others on 30 April, 2024

In view of above and considering the pleadings of the parties, evidence and material on record it is apparent that merely because there is no door of the house of the plaintiff-defendant towards the land in dispute it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the lower appellate court are contrary to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Singh versus State of U.P. and others (supra). Even Otherwise if it could have been a reason for vitiating findings recorded by the lower appellate court, then the defendant-appellants can not claim their right on the land in dispute in any manner as their house is admittedly situated at a distance and they have failed to prove their case as discussed in detail by the first appellate court after considering the pleadings of parties and evidence adduced by them.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next