Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Padman vs Hanwanta on 19 May, 1915
That case was noticed by the Privy Council in Padman v. Hanwanta, AIR 1915 PC 111 and it was observed that the said presumption may not be applicable to the people of this country in view of their nature and habits. The relevant observations of their Lordships are as follows:
Raja Bhupendra Narain Sinha Bahadur vs Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat And Ors. on 18 November, 1930
16. I am fortified in the above view by the observations of their Lordships in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur's case (AIR 1931 PC 162) (supra). In that case the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession of the subsoil, and an injunction restraining the respondents from digging and removing the stones, earth or minerals, including the ochre, and claiming a large sum as damages. He was the eldest of four brothers, representing a zamindari which he alleged to be an impartible estate vested in him alone. He, however, joined his brothers as pro forma defendants to the suit and they supported his claim. The Subordinate Judge gave the appellant the declaration and injunction asked, in respect of the minerals, but holding that his sole title to the zamindari was not established, gave him only a quarter of the damages proved in respect of the removal of ochre. Both the parties appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal of the respondent with the result that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Privy Council. A contention was raised there that the appellant having not established that the zamindari was impartible, he could not recover more than the quarter share of the damages. Their Lordships observed as follows:
R.S. Madanappa And Ors vs Chandramma And Anr on 5 March, 1965
16. I am fortified in the above view by the observations of their Lordships in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha Bahadur's case (AIR 1931 PC 162) (supra). In that case the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession of the subsoil, and an injunction restraining the respondents from digging and removing the stones, earth or minerals, including the ochre, and claiming a large sum as damages. He was the eldest of four brothers, representing a zamindari which he alleged to be an impartible estate vested in him alone. He, however, joined his brothers as pro forma defendants to the suit and they supported his claim. The Subordinate Judge gave the appellant the declaration and injunction asked, in respect of the minerals, but holding that his sole title to the zamindari was not established, gave him only a quarter of the damages proved in respect of the removal of ochre. Both the parties appealed to the High Court which allowed the appeal of the respondent with the result that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Privy Council. A contention was raised there that the appellant having not established that the zamindari was impartible, he could not recover more than the quarter share of the damages. Their Lordships observed as follows:
Section 125 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
1