Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Section 79 in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Baijnath Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Babu Tej Bali Singh on 30 May, 1916
As
pointed out in Baijnath Prasad Singh's case(4)
when before the Allahabad High Court the
junior members of a great zamindari enjoy a
high degree of consideration, being known as
babus, the different branches holding babuana
grants out of the zamindari. Their enjoyment
of these grants is attributable to their
membership of the joint family, and until the
decisions above referred to beginning in 1888
supervened, they had no reason to believe
that their rights of succession were being
imperilled by their estrangement from the
zamindar in possession."
Shiba Prasad Singh vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi on 7 April, 1932
We shall have no. objection in this regard.
Since the decision of the Privy Council in Shiba Prasad
Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Devi(1) it must be taken to be
well settled that an estate which is impartible by custom
cannot be said to be the separate or exclusive property of
the holder of the
(1) 59 I.A. 331.
Protap Chandra Deo Dhanbal Deb vs Sri Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb on 20 June, 1924
an impartible raj to dispose of the same by
deed (Sartaj Kuari's case(1) or by will (the
First Pittapur case(") and Protap Chandra Deo
v. Jagadish Chandra Deo(3) remains definitely
established, the right of the junior branch
to succeed by survivorship to the raj on the
extinction of the senior branch has also been
definitely and emphatically re-affirmed. Nor
must this right be whittled away. It cannot
be regarded as merely visionary."
Raja Yarlagadda Mallikarjuna Prasada ... vs Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasada Nayadu ... on 11 July, 1900
"One result is at length clearly shown
to be that there is no reason why the earlier
judgments of the Board should not be followed,
such as for instance the Challapalli case
(Raja Yarlagadda Mallikariuna Prasad Nayadu v.
Raja Yarlagadda Durga Prasad Nayadu(6) which
regarded their right to maintenance, however,
limited, out of an impartible estate as being
based upon the joint ownership of th
e junior
members of the family, with the result that
these members holding zamindari lands for
maintenance could still be considered as joint
in estate with the zamindar in possession."
The Collector Of Gorakhpur vs Ram Sundar Mal on 11 June, 1934
It was held
by the Judicial Committee in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram
Sunder Mal(3), the: right of maintenance to junior members
out o,f an impartible estate was based on joint ownership of
the junior members of the family.
Section 73 in The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1