Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 71 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 47 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Paritosh Maity And Etc. vs Ghasiram Maity And Anr. on 11 December, 1986
In view of the ratio of the case of Luthra Uraon (supra) and Paritosh Maithy (supra) read with the ratio of the case of Sree Raja Kanderegula Srinivasa Jagannadharao Panthala Bhadur Guru (dead) by his legal representatives (supra) the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for metes and bounds partition before the Civil Court is not barred under Section 258 of the said Act and viewed thus, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is maintainable and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said suit and the provision contained under Section 258 of the said Act does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect thereof. Both the learned Courts below have committed a manifest error in coming to the finding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and thus the suit of the plaintiff-appellant is not maintainable. However, it is equally pertinent to mention here that inspite of the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is held to be maintainable before the Civil Court. The appeal stands concluded by concurrent findings of the fact which do not call for any interference by this Court and thus this appeal is fit to be dismissed.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Secretary Of State vs Mask And Co. on 15 March, 1940
In the case of Sree Raja Kanderegula Srinivasa Jagannadharao Panthala Bhadur Guru (dead) by his legal representatives v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 71, the ratio of the case of Secretary of State (supra) has been found favour regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of title and in the facts and circumstances of that case it was observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts cannot be excluded. It, therefore, appears from the ratio of the aforesaid cases that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of his title along with the consequential reliefs is maintainable in the Civil Court and it is not barred under Section 258 of the said Act and the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the Civil Courts to hear and determine all civil suits and the right of every individual to have a suit determined by the ordinary Courts is an inherent part of the rule of law and is, therefore, one of the fundamental liberties of the citizen. When, therefore, the legislature takes away that right it is to be presumed that it does not intend to do so to any greater extent than the effect of the words used and the apparent object of the particular enactment necessarily require.