Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 85 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Prithvi Raj Jhingta And Anr. vs Gopal Singh And Anr. on 7 September, 2006
In
the case of Prithvi Raj Jhingta (supra), Full Bench of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court was considering the scope of Rule 2 of Order 14 of
the CPC. In the present case, in view of the order passed by the
civil court, further hearing of the suit is suspended and the stage
of deciding of issues has not yet arisen.
Parmar Kanaksinh Bhagwansinh (Dead) By ... vs 1. Makwana Shanabhai Bhikhabhai & 2. ... on 8 December, 1994
4. On
the other hand, learned advocate Shri M.B.Gandhi for the respondents
opposed the petition and placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Parmar Kanaksinh Bhagwansinh v. Makwana
Shahabhai Bhikhabhai, 1994 (0) GLHEL-SC 20785 submitted that it
was incumbent on the civil court to refer the issue for decision by
the tenancy court and suspend further proceedings of the suit.
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Hargovan Keshav vs Mansing Thakorbhai on 3 March, 2000
In
the case of Hargovan Keshav (supra), the learned Judge of this Court
found that the defendant was taking an inconsistent stand of tenancy
on one hand and ownership on the other. It was in this background,
that even while observing that on plain reading of section 85, it is
clear that the Civil Court is bound to refer the issue regarding
tenancy to Mamlatdar and cannot insist that the party must establish
prima facie case, it was further observed that this does not mean
that as and when such a plea is raised, the Court without applying
mind must refer the same to the Mamlatdar.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shri D.M.Deshpande & Ors vs Shri Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (Dead) ... on 12 November, 1998
In
the case of D.M.Deshpande (supra), the Apex Court was considering a
case wherein in the execution proceedings the case of tenancy was
set up without disclosing how it was created, when it was created
and terms thereof. The Apex court also found that the land of the
trust was exempted from the operation of the Tenancy Act. The Apex
Court, therefore, found that the executing court rightly rejected
the objection of the respondent regarding their claim of tenancy.
1