Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.44 seconds)
Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Ramakant Roy on 27 May, 2025 cites

Mahabir Kansi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2022

'It is well settled that transfer of land cannot be done by virtue of only a Sada Hukumnama and an unregistered Hukumnama is not admissible and cannot be considered as a deed of title.' It is also found in the case of Mahabir Kansi Vs. State of Jharkhand that Sada Hukumnama cannot be relied upon for the reason that the same can always be manufactured and the plaintiff side has also not brought any document to show the return filed by the Jamindar after abolition of Jamindari& BLR Act came enforce and so after going through the entire oral and documentary evidences and the discussion made above I find and hold that on the basis of Ext.7 Sada Hukumnama Devrani Devi got no 8 2025: JHHC: 14230 title of the suit land and since the vendor of plaintiff has not got title of the suit land so the question of title to the plaintiff on the suit land does not arise. Hence plaintiff has failed to prove the title over the suit land. So this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dineshwar Prasad Sah @ Shah vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 12 March, 2008

For this part of my findings the reliance may be placed upon the case of Sri Kanak Kumari Devi and others Vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 572 and also on the case of Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 273, Smt. Gulabasi Devi Vs State of Bihar reported in 2003 (4) JCR 41 Jharkhand. As per the facts of this case the ex-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - D G Patnaik - Full Document

Smt. Gulabasi Devi And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 31 July, 2003

For this part of my findings the reliance may be placed upon the case of Sri Kanak Kumari Devi and others Vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 572 and also on the case of Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 273, Smt. Gulabasi Devi Vs State of Bihar reported in 2003 (4) JCR 41 Jharkhand. As per the facts of this case the ex-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Suresh Urawan & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 March, 2012

1 to 3 with Exhibit-A and B, it appeared that the disputed land was government land and Government of Bihar has title and possession over the land and after inviting objection from the general public, the land was transferred to defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The learned trial court recorded that admittedly the disputed land was recorded as Gair Abad Malik land and it appeared that it was transferred to Devrani Devi through Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit-7) and it was not registered. Thereafter, the learned trial court referred to the judgment passed by this Court reported in (2009) 4 JLJR 106 (Mahadeo Urawan vs. State of Bihar & Others) wherein it was observed that Sada Hukumnama being an unregistered Hukumnama is not admissible and cannot be considered as a deed of title.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S A Khan - Full Document

Smt. Kanak Kumari Devi And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 31 March, 2008

For this part of my findings the reliance may be placed upon the case of Sri Kanak Kumari Devi and others Vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 572 and also on the case of Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 273, Smt. Gulabasi Devi Vs State of Bihar reported in 2003 (4) JCR 41 Jharkhand. As per the facts of this case the ex-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - N N Tiwari - Full Document

Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 3 December, 2020

In furtherance to the aforesaid judgements cited by the learned 1st appellate court, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has cited another judgement of this court passed in L.P.A. No. 413 of 2024 (Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others) wherein the writ petition was filed challenging the notice issued by the Circle Officer to evict and the writ court had directed the writ petitioner to go to the civil court for declaration of title and get back possession and consequently, the writ petitioner was in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the State should file civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession as there was long standing jamabandi and the Circle Officer could not determine as to whether one or the other document 22 2025: JHHC: 14230 was fake or not genuine. The findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: -
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R Shankar - Full Document

Mt. Ugni And Anr. vs Chowa Mahto And Ors. on 13 November, 1967

43. This Court also finds that it has been recorded in paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court that the plaintiffs could not even prove their possession over the suit property and while referring to the case of Mt. Ugni (Supra), it has been observed that in the case of Mt. Ugni admittedly the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. Moreover, in the said case, no order passed in suit under Section 87 of the CNT Act came up for consideration and a technical objection was also considered that since the suit land was recorded as gairmajarua land, State was a necessary party to the suit for declaration of title. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the aforesaid judgment passed in F.A. No. 29 of 2009 is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case and does not apply to this case and does not help the appellants in any manner.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By Its ... vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society ... on 6 September, 2002

9. The learned counsel for the appellants, in response, has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others) (paragraphs 15 and 19) to submit that the onus is always upon the plaintiffs to prove their case. Any lacunae in the defendants' case will not give any advantage to the plaintiffs.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 57 - Cited by 202 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Sri 5 Sita Maharani And Ors. vs Chhedi Mahto And Ors. on 3 February, 1955

"21. So far as the first point for determination regarding Hukumnama is concerned it is pertinent to mention here that, it is a settled principle of law that in a Hukumnama wherein the settlement of the Raiyati interest with any person had been reduced to writing; requires registration and if it is not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani and others v. Chhedi Mahto and others reported in AIR 1955 SC 328. It is needless to mention that by the Hukumnama filed in this case the settlement of the Raiyati interest with the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest had been reduced to writing hence the same requires registration but as the same is not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents. Hence the same is of no help to the plaintiffs. Hence the learned trial court was not in error by not considering the same to declare the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thus, the first point for determination is answered in negative against the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M/S India Estates Developments Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 6 September, 2018

11. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar. 1003 (M/s. India Estates Developments Limited, Ranchi Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others) (paragraph 9) to submit that the requirement of claiming property through Sada Hukumnama and the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act have been duly considered. Filing of return is one of the essential steps in the matter of claiming settlement and continuation of settlement under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. He submits that not even a single rent receipt has been produced by the plaintiffs which was relating to the period prior to vesting and even after vesting, the oldest rent receipt is sometimes of the year 1972. He has submitted that the rent receipts which have been produced by the plaintiffs are of no consequence.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next