Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)
N. Muhammad Hussain Sahib And Ors. vs Selambukara Abdul Gaffoor Sahib And ... on 14 February, 1945 cites

Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh And Ors. on 13 July, 1915

In Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh (1915) 29 M.L.J. 335 : L.R. 42 LA. 202 : I.L.R. 37 All. 557 (P.C.) the facts were these. A Hindu taluqdar had two wives and a Muhammadan mistress. He purchased a house in the name of his mistress and had the deed registered in her name but she was merely a benamidar for him. The taluqdar leased the property to the defendant. After his death, his senior winidow served upon the defendant a notice to quit and on his failure to comply with the demand, she instituted a suit for his ejectment. The defendant pleaded that he had bought the property from the Muhammadan mistress and claimed title through her. As she had no interest whatsoever in the property, she conveyed no title to him. It was in these circumstances that the Board said that Section 116 of the Evidence Act was clearly in point and the defendant was not entitled to deny his landlord's title. The Lordships were not considering a case where the tenant had acquired a paramount title to the property after the commencement of the tenancy.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 376 - Full Document

Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo vs The Baraboni Coal Concern Limited on 4 June, 1937

This was not so. When the judgment of their Lordships is understood, it will be seen that it does not in any way prohibit the application of the rule in Nesbitt y. Mablethorpe Urban Council (1917) 2 K.B. 568 to cases in India, and when the judgment is read in conjunction with the later decision of the Judicial Committee in Kishan Prasad Lai Singh Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern, Ld. (1937) 2 M.L.J. 286 : L.R. 64 I.A. 381 : (1938) 1 Cal. 1 (P.C.), this is even plainer.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 157 - Full Document
1