Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.17 seconds)Section 3 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Irulappan Servai vs Veerappan Alias Kaluvandan Servai And ... on 11 November, 1921
524 : 1 L.W. 414 : 15 M.L.T. 340, Ayling, J. who is a party to the decision in Irulappan Servai v. Veerappan 42 M.L.J. 113 : 69 Ind. Cas. 918 : (1922) M.W.N. 67 : 15 L.W. 99 : 31 M.L.T. 71, held that a suit for a declaration that the sale of a holding under Section 111 was void in consequence of the landholder's failure to apply for sale within 45 days as prescribed by Section 115 of the Act will lie in the Civil Court. In that case he observed as follows:
V. Srinivasa Varadachariar vs Sami Reddi And Ors. on 26 April, 1912
8. This is apparently the view taken in Sreenivasa Varadachariar v. Swami Reddi 23 M.L.J. 161 : 16 Ind. Cas. 458.
Parbati Debi vs Mathura Nath Banerjee on 12 June, 1912
5. See per Mookerjee, J. in Parbati Debi v. Mathura Nath Banerji 40 C. 29 at pp. 35 & 36 : 15 Ind. Cas. 453 : 16 C.W.N. 877 : 16 C.L.J. 9.
Section 2 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Korapalu And Anr. vs Narayana Alias Naranappayya on 24 July, 1913
In Sri Raja Simhadu Appa Rao v. Prattipathi Ramayya 29 M. 29, ubramania Ayyar, Officiating C.J. was inclined to the view that a tenant-in common may have ejectment as against the lessee to the extent of his undivided interest following Cutting v. Derby (1776) Ir. W. BI. 1075 at p. 1077 : 96 E.R. 633, and Doe de Whayman v. Chaplain 3 Taunton 120 : 12 R.R. 615 : 128 E.R. 49, a view which found acceptance in Korapalu v. Narayana 25 M.L.J. 315 : 20 Ind. Cas. 930 : (1913) M.W.N. 655 : 38 M. 445.
S. Chidambaram Pillai vs Muthammal And Anr. on 17 March, 1914
In fact in Chidambaram Pillai v. Muthammal 38 M. 1042 : 23 Ind. Cas.