Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)
Revanappa vs Muniyappa (Deceased) By L.R. And Others on 23 March, 1998 cites

Babu Poojary vs Assistant Commissioner on 10 April, 1995

8. So, the question of petitioner's possession of the property during the pendency of the suit for possession instituted by the respondent cannot avail to support a claim of deemed tenancy as the claim is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. If Kallappa had no semblance of title to the property he could hardly confer a better title to the petitioner in this case. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the decision reported in Babu Poojary v Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore and Others, in support of the claim of the petitioner. I hardly see any relevance of this decision is concerned as consistent gap between Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Seena Seregara vs Land Tribunal on 22 February, 1984

In Seena Seregara's case, supra, the lease created was by the owner of the land in contravention of the Land Grant Rules. In such a situation the lease was held valid as obviously the owner of the land was in lawful possession of the land till evicted in accordance with law consequent on cancellation of the grant for contravention of the terms of grant. Kallappa under whom the petitioner claims tenancy had absolutely no power to create the lease being a rank trespasser. Therefore, the decision relied upon would not apply to the circumstances of the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next