Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Ganapathy Pandaram vs Arulmigu Mariamman And Vinayagar ... on 18 November, 2021 cites

State Of Tamil Nadu Etc vs Ramalinga Samigal Madam Etc on 1 May, 1985

15. It is further held therein that the decision by the authorities under the Act, is only 'for the purpose of the Act', because the machinery is provided under the Act to decide certain matters and it does not mean that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of title to the land, is excluded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1985) 4 SCC 10 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU vs. RAMALINGA SAMIGAL MADAM) observed that, any decision impliedly rendered on the aspect of nature or character of the land on that occasion will have to be regarded as incidental to and merely for the purpose of passing the order of granting or refusing to grant the patta and for no other purpose. It is further observed therein that the Settlement Officer has no power to do what Civil Court would normally do in a suit and it is therefore difficult to imply ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction simply because finality has been accorded to the Settlement Officer's order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 141 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

A.T.S. Chinnaswami Chettiar Etc vs Sri Kari Varadaraja Perumal Temple & ... on 22 September, 1995

22. Here, it is a case, while at the time of issuing patta in favour of the defendants vide Ex.A3, Settlement Tahsildar observed in para 2 as, the Temple never enjoyed the Kudivaram over the lands and that the Temple was only entitled to Melvaram. After observing as above, he has granted ryotwari patta in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the said order directing to issue ryotwari patta in view of Section 44 of H.R.&C.E. Act, not having any merits and therefore, the said decision rendered by the Settlement Tahsildar, is nothing but erroneous one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1