Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Kartar Nath vs Inder Nath And Ors. on 28 October, 1987 cites

Jyotish Thakur And Ors. vs Tarakant Jha And Ors. on 11 September, 1962

The three owners occupied dual legal status, by virtue of becoming owners they became landlords of shop No. 573 and by virtue of being three partners/in M/s. Dhingra Brothers they became tenants Along with Girdhari Lal in the said shop. After the purchase of the property, the partnership was dissolved inasmuch as the shop No. 573 was divided into two portions, one portion 573A again came in the tenancy of M/s. Dhingra Brothers which comprised of two partners, namely, Inder Nath co-owner and his father Girdhari Lal and the other portion 573B came in the tenancy of Kartar Nath and Pishori Lal, the two co-owners. They occupied dual position ; they were co-landlords Along with Inder Nath and co-tenants under the three landlords. It is always question of intention of the parties whether tenancy rights were to be considered to have been surrendered or were intended to be merged in the ownership rights In Jyotish Thahur and Others v. Tarakant Jha and Others, Air 1963 Sc 655, it was observed that the union of the superior and sub-ordinate interests will not automatically cause a merger and merger will be held to have taken place if the intention to merge is clear and not otherwise. It was also observed in this judgment that in the absence of any express indication of intention, the courts will proceed on the basis that the party had no intention to merge if it was to his interest not to merge and also if a duty lay on him to keep the interests separate. In the cited case raiyati interest held by the purchaser was held to be kept separate with the observation that: "EVEN if it be held that the doctrine of merger applies to the Santhal Parganas, to this extent that if the person in whom the two interests unite chooses to treat them as one, the lesser interest should be held to have merged in the larger interest, in the absence of any evidence of such choice the raiyat must be held to have intended to keep the two interests distinct and separate."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Badri Narain Jha And Others vs Rameshwar Dayal Singh And Others on 5 February, 1951

In Badri Narain Jha & Others v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh & Others, , a similar question again arose for decision. In this case also a lessee had acquired a share in the proprietary interest of the property. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the Lesser purchases the lessee's interest, the lease no doubt is extinguished as the same man cannot at the same time be both a landlord and a tenant but there is no extinction of the lease if one of the several lessees purchases only a part of the Lesser's interest. In such a case the leasehold and the reversion cannot be said to coincide. It was observed that hence, in the case of an estate which is subject to Lakhraj and mokarrari interests, mere purchase by one of the several joint holders of the mokarrari interest, of portions of the lakhraj interest cannot bring about an extinction of the lease or break its integrity. There is no coalescence of the interest of the Lesser and the lessee in the whole of the estate and that being so, the mokarrari interests of the purchaser does not merge in his lakhraj interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Syed Ahmed vs Salima Bi And Ors. on 8 September, 1980

(8) Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Syed Ahmed v. Salima Bi & Others, . But the facts in '.he said case are distinguishable because in the said case the tenant had acquired the whole of the property and it was held that the tenancy rights had been extinguished by his purchasing the property. In the present case, the appellant is not the sole owner of the shop 573B so as to be inferred that his tenancy rights in the said shop stood merged with his proprietary rights. In the present case. as discussed above, there is clear admission of Inder Nath that at no point of time any party had intended that any merger of tenancy rights of M/s. Dhingra Brothers should take place when the three partners of that firm purchased the whole of the property or any merger of tenancy rights took place when the shop was partitioned and one portion came in the tenancy of the appellant and Pishori Lal ; rather the intention of the parties is clear that they never intended any merger of any tenancy rights taking place with the purchase of the property by the three owners. At no point of time all the co-tenants i.e. all the four partners of M/s. Dhingra Brothers became owners. On partition of shop No. 573 the tenancy of the only two owners in shop No. 573B was created whereas tenancy in shop No. 573A was created in the name of one co-owner and father of the co-owner.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jogendra Krishna Roy And Anr. vs Shafar Ali And Ors. on 1 June, 1922

In the case of Shafar Ali (supra), the plaintiff was a lessee of a part of property before acquisition of proprietary interest by the plaintiff and the defendant. It was held that plaintiff's rights under the lease of a part of the property did not merge in his right as joint owner of whole of the property as between the parties the plaintiff held a valid and subsisting lease.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hari Pratap And Anr. vs Ramgopal And Anr. on 22 January, 1960

In Hari Pratap & Another v, Ramgopal & Another, , a shop was jointly owned by three persons and was taken on lease by the tenant and tenant had purchased a fractional share of the shop. It was held that the tenancy rights had not merged with the proprietary rights and in such a case the tenant occupies a dual position, namely, position of a tenant with respect to portion of the shop and position of a landlord with respect to the share purchased by him.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chintaman Mahto vs Smt. Fanindra Devi And Ors. on 27 October, 1972

Again in Chintaman Mahto v. Smt. Fanindra Devi & Others, , it was observed that merger is a question of intention and decision of the question whether when a lesser interest vests in a person who holds greater interest, merger has taken place or not. depends upon the intention of the person who holds both the interests. This intention may be express, it may be implied or in cases where the party is incapable of expressing his intention the court has to consider what is beneficial to him. It is only where the two interests are co-extensive and vest in the same person in the same right, prima fade there would be merger unless it is proved that the intention of the holder was to keep the two interests separate.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1