Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.62 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Rambhau Ganpat Sutar vs Bhau Tatyaba Patole on 30 August, 1963
In the present case we do not think that the decision in Rambhau Ganpat's case is incorrect or requires overruling, but we would merely point out that it was concerned with property rights, is being accepted and applied for almost 10 years and no difficulty or hardship has been experienced or brought to our notice.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Madhav Vithoba Wani vs Dhondudas Bhaudas Bairagi And Anr. on 17 January, 1966
in Madhav Vithoba Wani v. Dhondudas Bhandas Bairagi, . That Division Bench referred to the principle laid down in that decision as "well established". It was also followed by Chandrachud, J., sitting singly in Special Civil Application No. 1024 of 1964 decided on 24-3-1965 (Bom). Our learned brother applied that principle to a different and more complicated set of facts.
Nirshi Dhobin & Ors vs Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherji And Ors on 30 July, 1968
In Nirshi v. Sudhir Kumar, upon a similar difficulty and although they were not in favour of the earlier view the Supreme Court set aside the decision of a Full Bench holding as follows: (see page 866)
"Till the decision under appeal High Courts of Patna and Calcutta proceeded on the basis that if the main lease is governed by the provisions of the Act and consequently taken out of the scope of the Transfer of Property Act then it must be held that all sub-leases of portions of the properties included in the main lease are agricultural leases; otherwise the main lease would cease to be a purely agricultural lease as it must be held to relate to both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. We agree with the Full Bench that the ratio of these decisions is open to question. If the legal position had not been firmly settled by a long chain of decisions commencing from 1903 onwards, it is likely that we would have concurred with the view taken by the Full Bench. But if we do so we would be unsettling a settled view of the law on the basis of which various rights must have been created, transactions entered into and titles founded. The rule laid down in the earlier decision was never departed from in the past. The Act was amended a number of times but yet the legislature did not think it necessary to alter or modify the said rule. Different considerations would have arisen if the disputed interpretation related to a penal provision or the same is detrimental to public interest or causes public inconvenience. Law is not always logic. It is a part of life and more so in a democratic set up. In law finality is of utmost importance. Unless so required in public interest, questions of law firmly settled by a long course of decisions should not ordinarily be disturbed and it is all the more so in the case of an interpretation affecting property rights."
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 31 in The Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Pandharinath Sone Shinde vs Ramjan Aimat Musalman on 31 January, 1967
15. Now that decision has held the field for nearly 10 years since it was given. It was followed by Palekar, J., as he then was in Pandharinath Sone Shinde v. Ramjan Aimat Musalman, (1967) 69 Bom LR 574 at p. 575. Palekar, J., said that it was settled law on that occasion.
1