Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)

Laxman Sahni And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 17 March, 1989

"6. The next thing is whether the nature of land being as aforesaid does thelaw permit change? In my view, State andits officials are still harbouring a misconception that once a land is recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam or such land, no settlement can be made by anyone at any point of time. The sooner this wrong impression is erased, the better it is because on this spacious plea, lot of damage is being done. It is well settled judicially that such lands can be settled. That being so, it cannot be said that as the lands were recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind, the settlements in respect thereof and the Jamabandi in respect thereof becomes suspect, or becomes illegal. There cannot be any such presumption or assumption. Those assumptions and presumptions are clearly misplaced. I can "here Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 34/40 usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandeshwari Prasad Narain Deo v. State of Bihar since reported in 1956 BUR 24 as also to the case of Laxman Sahai v. State of Bihar since reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 457.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Brahma Nand Puri vs Neki Puri on 24 November, 1964

"31. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the onus is Patna High Court SA No.122 of 2002 dt.14-12-2023 29/40 upon the plaintiff to prove his title. Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove his title independently, and a decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been able to prove his title, as held by this Court in Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri [Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506] as under: (AIR p. 1508, para 8) "8. ... The plaintiff's suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 46 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next