Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Hargovan Keshav vs Mansing Thakorbhai on 3 March, 2000 cites

Hafiz Mohammed Fateh Nasib vs Swarup Chand Hukum Chand on 2 December, 1947

Mr. Jhaveri placed reliance on the decision rendered by Privy Council in the case of Hafiz Mohammad Fateh Nasib Vs. Sir Swarup Chand Hukum Chand, AIR 1948 PC 76. Considering the facts of the case, Their Lordships of Privy Council were of the opinion that an adverse possession of the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title has been proved for the requisite period. In other words, the period of predecessor-in-interest can be taken into consideration for deciding the case of adverse possession. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principle laid down in the said judgment. However, considering the facts on hand, in my opinion, the said judgment cannot help the case of the appellant. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the survey no. 393 which is included in Schedule A is sold by the defendant no.1 to the appellant. In form no. 6 i.e. Record of Rights, it is mentioned that the survey no. 393 was sold by Ratansing Narsing, the general power of attorney holder of plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.3 to the appellant on 3.9.1964 for Rs. 1806/-. Except the said entry, no document i.e. sale deed is produced on the record of the case. In absence of any registered sale deed, the appellant cannot be held to be a lawful purchaser of survey no. 393 and, therefore, the question of applicability of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act will not arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Joshi Chhaganlal Garbaddas (Decd.) ... vs Raising Khodasing And Ors. on 23 July, 1985

9. Mr. Jhaveri next contended that even though he has raised a specific contention regarding the tenancy of the land in the written statement, Civil Court ought to have referred it to the Mamlatdar. After inviting my attention to the provisions of section 4 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948(herein after referred to as' the Act'), Mr. Jhaveri contended that the appellant was lawfully cultivating the land bearing survey no. 393 belonging to the plaintiff who is deemed to be a tenant especially when the land has not been cultivated personally by the plaintiffs. In the submission of Mr. Jhaveri, the appellant being not the member of the owner's family is a deemed tenant within the meaning of section 4(a) of the Act and, therefore, under section 85 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or the Tribunal. Mr. Jhaveri, therefore, submitted that under section 85A of the Act, the Civil Court ought to have made reference to the revenue authorities. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Joshi Chhaganlal Garbaddas Vs. Raising Khodasing, 27(1) GLR 69 wherein this Court has ruled that the question regarding prima facie case of tenancy does not arise for consideration of the Civil Court. If an issue arises, which is required to be decided by a tenancy court, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same even in going into that question.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1