Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 59 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Basarat Ali Khan vs Manirulla on 2 June, 1909
In Basarat Ali Khan v. Manirulla 2 Ind. Cas. 416 : 36 C. 745 : 10 C.L.J. 40 Jenkins, C.J., held that an assignment was operative notwithstanding the covenant. That, however, was a case of a permanent lease with a restraint on transfer, without any provision for re-entry. These decisions have no application to the present case where the lease was a lease for life only.
Hiramati Dassya vs Annada Prasad Ghosh And Ors. on 31 January, 1916
In Hiramoti Dassya v. Annoda Prosad Ghosh 7 C.L.J. 553 itwasheld that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to a tenancy created before the Act came into force and that a non-permanent tenure created before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act is not transferable. The decisions relied upon on behalf of the appellant are, there fore, of no assistance to him. It is unnecessary to consider whether the lease was void for want of registration or because it was granted in favour of an infant, because it is the evidence, and it is conceded, that no lease was in fact executed. The respondent relies on the evidence which I have already referred to to show that there was tenancy which may be inferred from the actings of the parties.
Section 11 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Jeo Lal Singh And Ors. vs Raja Wazir Narain Singh on 3 January, 1921
The question then reduces itself to this, whether Sambhuprasad was a tenant for life? Strong evidence of the temporary nature of the tenure is found in the fact that a decree in ejectment was passed in the suit for rent, because by the provisions of Section 59, it is only a tenure-holder who has not a permanent or transferable interest, whose lease is liable to be cancelled and who is liable to ejectment when an arrear of rent is adjudged to be due from him. The presumption of the correctness of the decree is against the plaintiffs and it was for them to show that the decree was without jurisdiction. Jeo Lal Singh v. Wazir Narain Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 764 : 2 P.L.T. 638].
Bhaiyan Sundarbas Kueri And Anr. vs Khawas Dilwar Sahu on 30 July, 1919
P.C.J. 429 : 20 E.R. 347; Sundarbas Kueri v. Dilwar Sahu 52 Ind. Cas. 701 : 1 P.L.T. 30 : (1920) Pat. 39. But there is no proof of the permanent tenure nature of the tenure to deprive the decree in ejectment of its evidential value to the contrary. Oral evidence was given on be-half of the defence by Mosahablal, the grandson of Narayandas that the grant to Narayandas and Sambhuprasad was for life only. In his petition to be made a party to the rent suit (Ex. J) plaintiff No. 1 asserted that he had purchased an istimrari mokarrari interest in Mauza Nawadi and it has been held that in Hazaribagh an istimrari mokarrari interest is a life interest only. Apart from this admission (if it can be taken to be an admission) the fact remains that all that is established on the evidence is a tenancy in Sambhuprasad and that the plaintiff has failed to establish that it was a permanent tenure. Consequently it must have been of a temporary nature and it continued by the receipt and payment of rent until the decree in Suit No. 210 of 1920 was passed. It is, therefore, impossible for the plaintiffs to set up a title by prescription acquired during the continuance of the tenancy.
1