Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
P. Amumacha Sarma vs P. Manimacha Sarma And Ors. on 28 April, 1967 cites

Jalumuru Kamaraju vs Kenguva Suryanarayana And Anr. on 19 November, 1951

In Deonandan Singh v. Thakur Singh AIR 1949 Pat 58 it was held that the crops which had already been cut and kept on a storing place, which was not the subject-matter of dispute was moveable property and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the same under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. To the same effect is the decision in J. Kamaraju v. K. Suryanarayana , The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the analogy of cut crops and in view of the above decisions the C.I. Sheets, which were already removed by the petitioner and kept in his house, Cannot be said to be immovable property and that, therefore, they cannot be attachments counsel is that the C. I. sheets is question were seized by the police a law hours after the occurrence and that they must be deemed to be part of the "mandov' liable to be attached as immovable property under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He relied on the decision reported in A. Rampus v. A. Subba Reddy . In that case some trees were cut and severed a few hours or days before the preliminary order was passed. They were still lying on or near the land. It was held that they could be attached along with the land, since they would fall under the expression 'Crop or produce of land'.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rev. A. Rampus And Ors. vs Alumuri Subba Reddi And Anr. on 23 November, 1949

In Deonandan Singh v. Thakur Singh AIR 1949 Pat 58 it was held that the crops which had already been cut and kept on a storing place, which was not the subject-matter of dispute was moveable property and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to attach the same under Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. To the same effect is the decision in J. Kamaraju v. K. Suryanarayana , The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the analogy of cut crops and in view of the above decisions the C.I. Sheets, which were already removed by the petitioner and kept in his house, Cannot be said to be immovable property and that, therefore, they cannot be attachments counsel is that the C. I. sheets is question were seized by the police a law hours after the occurrence and that they must be deemed to be part of the "mandov' liable to be attached as immovable property under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He relied on the decision reported in A. Rampus v. A. Subba Reddy . In that case some trees were cut and severed a few hours or days before the preliminary order was passed. They were still lying on or near the land. It was held that they could be attached along with the land, since they would fall under the expression 'Crop or produce of land'.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1