Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)Section 90 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Transfer of Property Act, 1977
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Gaddam Narsa Reddy And Ors. vs Collector, Adilabad District And Ors. on 21 August, 1981
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale in favour of grandfather of the petitioners was effected after the vendor obtained permission under Act 1 of 1917, and therefore, the said transaction is saved. Insofar as Items-III and IV are concerned, learned Counsel would urge that though Yelike Mutyalu is non-tribal, the sale by him in favour of Katari Reddaiah on 01.5.1951 is prior to coming into force of the Regulation I of 1970 and therefore the Regulation has no application. He submits that Yelike Mutyalu is described as belonging to 'Dole' community, which is not specified as a hill tribe as per the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and therefore Section 4 of Act 1 of 1917 is not attracted. For this proposition, he relies on the judgment of the Agent to the Government, West Godavari, Eluru, in SRA No. 3/82, dated 13.7.1983, which is annexed to the writ petition. He also placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Gaddam Narsa Reddy v. Collector, Adilabad District in support of the contention that sale by a non-tribal in favour of another non-tribal prior coming into force of Regulation I of 1970 is not rendered illegal or void.