Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.14 seconds)
Janaki Nath Nandi vs Amarendra Nath Biswas And Anr. on 16 August, 1932 cites

Jai Pratap Narain Singh And Ors. vs Rabi Pratap Narain Singh on 21 February, 1930

There is ample authority for the proposition that the proviso in Clause 3 does not mean that persons in occupation not coming within the definition of khudkast raiyats are liable to be ejected oven if they have acquired occupancy rights under the Tenancy Law. I have not been able to find any authority with regard to the patni sales, but the cases with reference to Section 16, Act 8, of 1865, where the proviso is in the same terms as the proviso in C1. 3, Section 11, Regn. 8 of 1819 support the proposition. Those cases are Pureeag Singh v. Pratap Narain Singh (1869) 11 WR 253; Nil Madhab v. Shiboo Pal (1870) 13 WR 410; Eman Ali v. Atur Ali (1874) 22 WR 133 and Bama Charan v. Bam, Kanai (1915) 28 IC 374.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1