Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Maharaj Bahadur Singh And Ors. vs Surendra Narain Singh And Ors., ... on 8 July, 1914
15. To avoid difficulties and anomalies in allowing a charge under Section 65, Bengal Tenancy Act even after the relationship between the parties had ceased the Judicial Committee in 'Forbes case (E)' laid down that such relationship must continue until the sale takes place. For enforcing a rule of limitation those difficulties do not arise.
Article 116 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Diwan Balmukund Sahai vs Tarini Singh And Ors. on 3 September, 1912
The question is whether the decision in Balmukund's case (A) may be considered to be an authority after the decision of the Judicial Committee in -- 'A. H. Porbes v. MaharaJ Bahadur' AIR 1914 PC 111 (E).
Srimant Roy vs Mahadeo Mahata on 12 January, 1904
In support of this principle reference was made to the rule which was then considered to be a good one that a decree for rent obtained by the landlord after he had parted with his interest is a rent decree and to be enforceable as such. Reliance was placed on -- Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. A.H. Forbes' 35 Cal 737 (B), --'Srimant Roy v. Mahadeo Mahata' 8 Cal WN 531 (C) and -- 'Khetrapal Singh v. Kritarthamoyi' 33 Cal 566 (FB) (D).
1