Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.81 seconds)Section 60 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 63 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mata Dayal Lal vs Lalji Sahai And Ors. on 28 June, 1927
7. Apparently the learned Judge of the Court below was not satisfied on the evidence that the defendants were led to believe that they were entitled to construct new buildings on account of any declaration or omission on the part of the plaintiffs. Reliance has been placed on Mata Dayal Lal v. Lalji Sahai (1927) 14 A.I.R. All 838. In this case the learned Judge found on facts that the plaintiff was estopped by reason of his own previous conduct, under Section 115, Evidence Act, from disputing the right of the vendee in the property transferred under the sale deed which he himself attested. It appears that in this case the dispute was with regard to sir plots which were transferred by the vendor to the vendee and the plaintiff had attested the document in token of his acceptance of the transfer. Under these circumstances it is obvious that the plaintiff could not be allowed to challenge the transfer of the sir plots. In the present case I am bound by the finding of the learned Civil Judge who was not satisfied on the evidence that the defendants were induced to construct the additional building on account of the declaration or omission of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, in my judgment, the plea of estoppel has no force.
Kalyan Das vs Jan Bibi And Anr. on 8 August, 1928
In Kalyan Das v. Jan Bibi (1929) 16 A.I.R. All 12 it was held that
when a purchaser for value is evicted in equity under a prior title he will be credited with all the moneys expended by him in necessary repairs or permanent improvements....
Uma Shankar Lal And Ors. vs Mahabir Prasad And Ors. on 26 June, 1929
10. The next ruling cited by learned Counsel for the respondents is reported in Uma Shankar Lal v. Mahabir Prasad (1929) 16 A.I.R. All 854. In this case the plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of possession of a house on the ground that the defendants had no right to remain in possession of the same and that a gift of this house in favour of the defendants was null and void. It was found on evidence that the gift in favour of the defendant was inoperative, that the defendants had been occupying the house for a very long time and that under the belief that the gift in their favour was legal and operative they had spent considerable amount of money in overhauling and repairing the house. In view of these findings the learned Judges-observed as follows:
Badal Chandra Sadhukhan vs Debendra Nath Dey on 14 December, 1932
In Badal Chandra Sadhukhan v. Debendra Nath (1933) 20 A.I.R. Cal. 612 the following observations have been relied upon:
1