Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.23 seconds)Section 35 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Faqruddin (D) Th.Lrs vs Tajuddin (D) Th.Lrs on 16 May, 2008
Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Thr. ... vs Arthur Import & Export Co.. on 31 January, 2019
13. The proposition that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title over land nor such entries have any presumptive value on title has been restated in a recent decision in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors.6 placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh11 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka12. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors on 16 April, 2007
In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.
Smt. B. Narasamma vs Dy.Commr.Commercial Taxes Karnataka ... on 11 August, 2016
13. The proposition that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title over land nor such entries have any presumptive value on title has been restated in a recent decision in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors.6 placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh11 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka12. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
Smt. Hadisul Nisha vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) ... on 25 June, 2021
27. Certain exceptions where the remedy of writ petition can be resorted to so as to raise a challenge to orders passed in mutation proceedings have been referred to in Vijay Shankar Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Divison and others31, and Smt. Hadisul Nisha Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad3.