Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)

Jalesar Sahu vs Raj Mangal And Ors. on 27 April, 1921

The finding of the Court clearly shows that this plot was neither let nor held for agricultural purposes, but that it was let for the planting of a grove and a grove exists on it and it is incapable of cultivation. The plot, therefore, is neither land within the meaning of the Act nor a holding. There can, therefore, be no bar to the transferability of the rights of the defendants. Vide the case of Jalesar Sahu v. Raj Mangal 63 Ind. Cas. 437 : 19 A.L.J. 616 : 43 A. 606. The finding of the Court below that, under the circumstances, the rights are tranferable cannot be impugned.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Ganga Dei vs Badam And Ors. on 18 April, 1907

2. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ganga Dei v. Badam 5 A.L.J. 99 : 3 M.L.T. 194 : A.W.N. (1908) 51 : 30 A. 134, and the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833. Both these cases, however, are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases trees had been planted on agricultural holdings which had existed from before. When the holdings themselves were not transferable, they could not become transferable, after the planting of trees. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Daya Kishen vs Mohammad Wazir Ahmad on 2 July, 1915

2. Reliance has been placed on the case of Ganga Dei v. Badam 5 A.L.J. 99 : 3 M.L.T. 194 : A.W.N. (1908) 51 : 30 A. 134, and the case of Daya Kishen v. Mohammad Wazir Ahmad 30 Ind. Cas. 565 : 13 A.L.J. 833. Both these cases, however, are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases trees had been planted on agricultural holdings which had existed from before. When the holdings themselves were not transferable, they could not become transferable, after the planting of trees. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1