Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.54 seconds)
Daya Kishen vs Mohammad Wazir Ahmad on 2 July, 1915 cites

Imdad Khatun And Ors. vs Bhagirath on 3 January, 1888

He accordingly accepted the appeal and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The latter has come up in second appeal to this Court. He contends that an occupancy or non-occupancy tenant who plants trees on his holding has no right of transfer in the trees in the absence of a eastern or contract to the contrary. The following cases are relied upon in support of this contention : Kasim Mian v. Banda Husain 5 A. 616 : A. W. N. (1883) 169; Imdad Khatun v. Bhagirath10 A. 159 A. W. N. (1888) 32; Kausalia v. Gulab Kuar 21 A. 297 : A.W. N. (1899) 72 Janki v. Sheodhar23 A. 211 : A. W. N. (1901) 52; Wahida Khatun v Bulaqi Das 3 A. L. J. 385: A. W. N. (1906) 140 For the respondent the reply is that the finding of the lower Appellate Court is that the land of the grove in suit was given to Debi Singh on a fixed rent for the purpose of planting a grove and, therefore, the principle laid down in the cases relied upon by the appellant does not apply. It is said that when a zemindar grants land on rent to a persons to plant a grove, that person has a right of transfer in the trees.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Kausalia And Ors. vs Gulab Kuar And Ors. on 7 April, 1899

He accordingly accepted the appeal and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff. The latter has come up in second appeal to this Court. He contends that an occupancy or non-occupancy tenant who plants trees on his holding has no right of transfer in the trees in the absence of a eastern or contract to the contrary. The following cases are relied upon in support of this contention : Kasim Mian v. Banda Husain 5 A. 616 : A. W. N. (1883) 169; Imdad Khatun v. Bhagirath10 A. 159 A. W. N. (1888) 32; Kausalia v. Gulab Kuar 21 A. 297 : A.W. N. (1899) 72 Janki v. Sheodhar23 A. 211 : A. W. N. (1901) 52; Wahida Khatun v Bulaqi Das 3 A. L. J. 385: A. W. N. (1906) 140 For the respondent the reply is that the finding of the lower Appellate Court is that the land of the grove in suit was given to Debi Singh on a fixed rent for the purpose of planting a grove and, therefore, the principle laid down in the cases relied upon by the appellant does not apply. It is said that when a zemindar grants land on rent to a persons to plant a grove, that person has a right of transfer in the trees.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Habibullah A. D. And Ors. vs Kaltan Das And Ors. on 2 July, 1914

656 : 11 A. L. J. 649 : Habibullah v. Kalyan Das35 Ind. Cas. 169 : 12 A. L. J. 1080. The case-law, no doubt, makes a distinction between the rights of a tenant, occupancy or non-occupancy, who plants trees on his holding and of a person who is given land at a specified rent solely for the purpose of planting a grove. The contention of the respondent must prevail if it has been found that the land of the grove in suit was granted to Debi Singh for the purpose of planting a grove. It is true that the learned Subordinate Judge does say that he thinks that the land of the grove in suit was let to Debi Singh on a fixed rent for the purpose of planting a grove. But there does not seem to be any evidence in support of this finding. The defendant-respondent produced evidence to prove that the plaintiff-appellant had granted the land of the grove in suit to Bhopal and others who had planted the grove. The first Court disbelieved that evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept it also, for he holds that the land was granted to Debi Singh. He means presumably that the land was granted by the former zemindars, as the plaintiff-appellant was not the zemindar in the life-time of Debi Singh. In fact the learned Subordinate Judge in an earlier part of his judgment accepts the finding of the first Court that the grove in question was planted with the permission of the former zemindars. The revenue papers show that the land of the grove was the occupancy holding of Debi Singh for a long time before any trees were planted by him on it. The reason for the finding seems to be that the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the permission of the former zemindars, which was assumed in the absence of any protest by them, to Debi Singh to plant a grove, amounted to the grant of a fresh lease to him of the land for the purpose of planting a grove. If that were a valid reason the cases referred to above by the appellant were erroneously decided. But I do not think that it can be said that the permission by a zemindar to his occupancy or non-occupancy tenant to plant trees on his holding cancels the original lease and is a fresh lease for the purpose of planting trees. The finding under discussion being unsupported by any evidence cannot be accepted. The character of the grove in question then is that it was planted by an occupancy tenant on his holding. He or his successors have, therefore, no right of transfer in the trees. They cannot be sold privately or in execution of a decree against Bhopal and others.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1