Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
Kalavathy vs Saradha on 4 March, 2011 cites

Madurai Nayagamma And Ors. vs Plantian Merchants Association, ... on 29 August, 1967

The Division Bench of our High court has in the judgment reported in 1968 MLJ 386 in Madurai Nayagamma and others v. Plantain Merchants Association represented by its Secretary observed that if the sub tenant who was not made a party to the eviction application, may set up his own title, the order of eviction obtained against the chief tenant, is binding upon the sub tenant.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Seth Beni Chand (Since Dead) Now By L.Rs vs Smt. Kamla Kunwar And Others on 14 September, 1976

11.In this context, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has, in support of his contention against the claim of the decree holder, cited the authorities reported in AIR 1968 SC 1165 in Nair Service Society Ltd., v. K.C.Alexander and others, (1976) 4 SCC 554 in Seth Beni Chand (Since Dead) now by L.Rs v. Smt.Kamala Kunwar and others and 100 Law Weekly 71 in Kanthammal v. Bysani Sriramulu Chetti and another. The authority in (1976) 4 SCC 554 is cited for the legal proposition that the burden of proof in testamentary cases lies upon the party propounding the Will and the burden of proving the due execution of the Will is discharged, only if the propounder leads evidence to show that the will bears the signature or mark of the testator and the will is duly attested. It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the failure of the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the Will will certainly dis-entitle her to claim any right over the suit land and to enforce the decree for recovery of possession. In my considered view, such contention is liable to be negatived for the simple reason that the suit is based not on title but on tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the claim for tenancy relationship between the two stands undenied or disputed by the first defendant as such it is needless to go into the question of title based on Will in the present suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 132 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Kanthammal vs Bysani Sriramulu Chetti And Anr. on 12 September, 1986

11.In this context, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has, in support of his contention against the claim of the decree holder, cited the authorities reported in AIR 1968 SC 1165 in Nair Service Society Ltd., v. K.C.Alexander and others, (1976) 4 SCC 554 in Seth Beni Chand (Since Dead) now by L.Rs v. Smt.Kamala Kunwar and others and 100 Law Weekly 71 in Kanthammal v. Bysani Sriramulu Chetti and another. The authority in (1976) 4 SCC 554 is cited for the legal proposition that the burden of proof in testamentary cases lies upon the party propounding the Will and the burden of proving the due execution of the Will is discharged, only if the propounder leads evidence to show that the will bears the signature or mark of the testator and the will is duly attested. It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the failure of the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the Will will certainly dis-entitle her to claim any right over the suit land and to enforce the decree for recovery of possession. In my considered view, such contention is liable to be negatived for the simple reason that the suit is based not on title but on tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the claim for tenancy relationship between the two stands undenied or disputed by the first defendant as such it is needless to go into the question of title based on Will in the present suit.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

K.C. Chandu Kutti Kurup vs Gulam Mohideen Saheb on 30 July, 1971

In that event, the observation made by our High Court in the judgments reported in 1968 MLJ 386 in Madurai Nayagamma and others v. Plantain Merchants Association represented by its Secretary, 1984 LW 743 in K.C.Chanda Kutti Kurup v. Gulam Mohideen Saheb, (2007) 8 MLJ 43 in S.R.Mahendra Raj v. V.A.Gnanaprakasam and others, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the cases referred to above on the side of the appellant, our High Court observed that the land lord is entitled to remove the obstruction set up by the judgment debtor with a view to protract the proceedings of the delivery proceedings and the order of eviction obtained against the Chief tenant can be executed by evicting the sub tenants, who were not made parties in the application for eviction.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S.R. Mahendra Raj vs V.A. Gnanaprakasam [Deceased] ... on 16 December, 2006

In that event, the observation made by our High Court in the judgments reported in 1968 MLJ 386 in Madurai Nayagamma and others v. Plantain Merchants Association represented by its Secretary, 1984 LW 743 in K.C.Chanda Kutti Kurup v. Gulam Mohideen Saheb, (2007) 8 MLJ 43 in S.R.Mahendra Raj v. V.A.Gnanaprakasam and others, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the cases referred to above on the side of the appellant, our High Court observed that the land lord is entitled to remove the obstruction set up by the judgment debtor with a view to protract the proceedings of the delivery proceedings and the order of eviction obtained against the Chief tenant can be executed by evicting the sub tenants, who were not made parties in the application for eviction.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1