Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.75 seconds)

Fateh Kunwar vs Durbijai Singh on 14 March, 1952

77. The view of the Patna High Court is in line with the view expressed by the Full Bench decision of this Court and in that connection reference may be made to Brajasunder Deb v. Rajendra Narain, A. I. R. 1941 Pat. 269 (S. B.). In that case, the plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration that they were the owners of certain lands in three villages set out in four schedules to the plaint and for confirmation of possession. In the alternative, it was prayed that, if it was found that the plaintiffs were not in possession, they should be given possession of the lands in question. The defendant by his defence denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any relief and claimed that the lands in question belonged to him by reason of adverse possession over a long period of time. The trial Court substantially dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs and thereupon the latter preferred an appeal to the High Court. On appeal the plaintiffs claim with regard to the land in one village Olaver was decreed but their claim with regard to the land of the two other villages was dismissed, though on grounds different from those upon which their claim with regard to these lands was dismissed by the trial Court. The application for leave to appeal was opposed inter alia on the ground that the High Court's decree was one of affirmance.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - V Bhargava - Full Document

C.P. Appanna vs State Of Coorg And Anr. on 28 November, 1957

It was not disputed by Mr. Bhatt that if the Governor-General had made such declaration, legislation by the Coorg Legislative Council would have been undoubtedly competent. But, it is, I think, clear that no such declaration was made by the Governor-General in Council and the learned Advocate-General who had to admit that the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Jogendra Narayan v. Debendra Nara-yan AIR 1942 P. C. 44 (P) on which the Deputy Commissioner relied, when properly understood, does not support the conclusion that the previous sanction of the Governor-General obtained under Section 97 of the Government of India Act, amounted to a declaration to that effect, did not press that contention.
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1