Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Mohan Balaku Patil & Ors. vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre (Dead) By Lrs. on 28 January, 1999
The case-law relied upon by the appellants in Mohan Balaku Patil and Others v Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre (dead) by L.Rs and of this Court in Thimmaiah and Others v Smt. Khatumbi and Others and Venkatappa Ningappa v State of Karnataka and Others, was distinguished and held not applicable to the facts of the present case.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs The Bombay Trust Corporation, Limited on 26 November, 1929
In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency v Bombay Trust Corporation Limited, it is held that when a person or thing is 'deemed to be' something, the only meaning possible is that he or it is not in reality that something, the Act of legislature requires him or it to be treated as if or it were. Thus the expression 'deemed to be a tenant' intends to confer a status by legal fiction on persons other than those referred to clauses (a) to (e) of Section 4 but for which a person could not be a tenant in law. The phrase 'deemed to be' raises a presumption in favour of the person lawfully cultivating the land and it is a rebuttable presumption. To be a 'deemed tenant' one must lawfully cultivate the land belonging to another person. The word 'lawfully' implies, possession has a rightful origin and is capable of being defended successfully.
Muniyallappa vs B.M. Krishnamurthy And Others on 25 July, 1991
Relying on the decision of this Court in Muniyallappa v Krishnamurthy B.M. and Others, it was contended that he must be considered as a deemed tenant. But at page 402, this Court, after extracting the relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, has stated "It is unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, to lay down as to who are the persons entitled to be status of 'deemed tenant'". However, Sri Subba Rao relying on the portion extracted from the decision of the Supreme Court submitted that the consent of landlord was not necessary to consider his claim as a deemed tenant. It is true, if consent is there, it becomes a contractual right. Though it is not possible to exhaust the list of persons as to who could be considered as deemed tenants, for the purpose of examining the rival contentions, a few illustrations which have a bearing on the point are set out. A vendee in possession of the property on deferred payment of consideration in instalment, cannot be considered as a 'deemed tenant'. Likewise, vendor remaining in possession of the property till the payment of entire consideration cannot be deemed to be a tenant. A vendor who continues to be in possession of the property even after the execution of the sale deed with an understanding to harvest the crop standing on the date of the conveyance cannot be treated as a 'deemed tenant'. So also the vendor who has failed to deliver property cannot take advantage of his laches and claim to be a 'deemed tenant'. It is only to overcome the situation like this, the Legislature has categorically stated that it must be a lawful cultivation. 'Lawful' though not concomitant with the word 'concurrence', in view of tenancy laws, the possession must still be capable of being defended successfully if action is taken.
Section 2 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Paramashivaiah And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 11 November, 1999
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions (Paramashivaiah and Others v State of Karnataka) thereby confirming the order Annexure-L passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), rejecting the claim for confirmant of occupancy right in respect of land measuring 26 acres 29 guntas in Sy. Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 of Chikkayellur Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Magadi Taluk, the appellants have come up in these appeals.
1