Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.49 seconds)The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Section 121A in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 76 in The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
P.K. Rukmini Bai And Ors. vs Venkateswara Silk House And Ors. on 20 July, 1971
The High Court can interfere if the findings of the appellate Court are shown to be erroneous (See Neta Ram v. Jiwal Lal and P. K. Rukmini Bai v. Venkateswara Silk House (AIR 1972 Mys. 143) "
Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. Rs. & ... on 20 January, 1977
In the said Supreme Court case, the oral evidence was found to be satisfactory and acceptable. The necessary entries in the record of rights referred to a mutation entry, which had been carried out without issuing notice and without following the procedure laid down by the law. In this case, there is no question of mutation entry at all by virtue of which the name of Rudrappa was deleted and names of the revision petitioners were shown in the record of rights. As would be shown later, the oral evidence of respondents 3 and 4 and their witnesses is unsatisfactory and no reasonable person would ever be inclined to accept the same. Therefore, the principle laid down in the said Supreme Court case also will not be of any help to, him in the present case.