Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Sri 5 Sita Maharani And Ors. vs Chhedi Mahto And Ors. on 3 February, 1955

Madhusudan Sahu (Since Dead) & vs State Of Orissa on 7 May, 2024

19. On this aspect, by taking the ratios of the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court reported in AIR 1964 Patna 1 (Full Bench): Rama Nath Mandal Vs. Jojan Mandal & AIR 1955 SC 328 (Para No.13): Sita Maharani Vs. Chhedi Mahto into account, it has been held by the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions that, I. 2001 (1) OLR 208:Nrusingha Charan Samal & Another Vs. Kuntala Kumari Samal & Others. (Para No.8) Lease--Agricultural Land--"Hata Pata"--Agricultural land can be leased out orally by acceptance of rent and delivery of possession "Hata Pata" though not registered can be taken as evidencing oral lease.
Orissa High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lingaraj Rout And Others vs Managing Director on 11 December, 2023

// 18 // Assuming, for the sake of argument that the Ex-intermediary inducted the forefathers of the Plaintiffs as tenants is genuine, the fact that same is an unregistered document being an inadmissible document in evidence in view of the decision reported in AIR 1955 SC page 328 (Sita Maharani v. Chhedi Mahato and AIR 1964 Patna, page 1 Ram Nath Mandal and others v. Jojan Mandal and others), the same is of no avail to the Plaintiffs.
Orissa High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - C Dash - Full Document

N. Sambaudan And Anr. vs Saraswathi Ammal on 15 September, 1983

6. These decisions are to the effect that a lease of immovable property for more than one year requires registration, and if not registered, the document can be admitted in evidence only for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of possession and nothing more. The contention of the landlady that the terms contained therein could be treated as admission relying upon Balakrishna v. Ranga Reddy , cannot be entertained in the light of the decision in Sita Maharani v. Chhedi Mahto . which held that "no evidence could be given as to its terms, and the contents of the admission by B could not be used for that purpose".
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sobharam Mahato vs Raja Mahton And Ors. on 30 January, 1957

15. Whatever cleavage of opinion, or conflict, or uncertainty, if any, there might have been before in the past on the question whether an unregistered Hukumnama, creating raiyati settlement, could be used as evidence of the transaction itself, it is, however, now firmly established by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Sita Maharani v. Chhedi Mahto,, (S) AIR 1955 S C 328 (E), that settlement of raiyati interest under Hukumnama, when reduced to writing, required registration, and, if it is not registered, it is inadmissible, and no evidence could be given as to its terms, and, its contents could not be used for that purpose.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 11 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Inder Mohan Lal vs Ramesh Khanna on 4 August, 1987

Our attention was drawn to certain observations of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and oth- ers, [19641 4 S.C.R. 485 but the same are not relevant for our consideration in the present controversy in the light in which we have understood it. Equally same is the decision in respect of the observations of Fazal Ali, J. of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ishwar Dutt and another v. Sunder Singh and others, A.I.R. [1961] J & K 45 and the observa- tions of this Court in Sri 5 Sita Maharani and others v. Chhedi Mahto and others, A.I.R. [1955] S.C. 328. In the aforesaid light we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in the view it took in setting aside the decision in the second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order and judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th of July, 1985 are set aside and the order and judgment of Rent Control Tribunal dated 28th of August, 1980 are restored. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 32 - S Mukharji - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Ors vs Harpiya Bisoi on 20 April, 2009

23. It is the stand of the appellant-State that the 'Hatapatta' on the basis of which Kamala Devi has claimed her title is an unregistered document. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short the `T.P. Act') read with Section 17 of the India Registration Act, (in short the `Registration Act') mandates that the conveyance of title through a written instrument of any immovable property worth more than Rs.100 for a period of one year or more must be registered. If such an instrument is not registered then Section 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the `Evidence Act') precludes the adducing of any further evidence of the 12 terms and contents of such a document. [See Sri Sita Maharani v. Chhedi Mahto (AIR 1955 SC 328). There is a further requirement of registration of the instrument of conveyance/agricultural lease under Sections 15 and 16 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 (in short the `Tenancy Act').
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Orissa State Housing Board vs Sebati Dei @ Routray (Since Dead) on 10 May, 2022

"31. It is the stand of the appellant State that the "hatapatta" on the basis of which Kamala Devi has claimed her title is an unregistered document. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "the T.P. Act") read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates that the conveyance of title through a written instrument of any immovable property worth more than Rs.100 for a period of one year or more must be registered. If such an instrument is not registered then Section 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872 precludes the adducing of any further evidence of the terms and contents of such a document. (See S. Sita Maharani v. Chhedi Mahto AIR 1955 SC 328). There is a further requirement of registration of the instrument of conveyance/agricultural lease under Sections 15 and 16 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913."
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R K Pattanaik - Full Document
1   2 Next