Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Section 129 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
Radha Prasad Singh vs Gajadhar Singh & Others on 7 September, 1959
9. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that this Court should not ordinarily depart from the view of the trial Judge, who had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses. The answer to this argument is contained in the following observation of the Supreme Court in Radha Prasad Singh v. Gajadhar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 115:
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950
Section 37 in Bengal, Agra And Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959
"In view of these differences, it cannot be said that in the matter of religious trusts in the State of Bihar, Sikhs, Hindus and Jains are situated alike or that the needs of the Jains and Hindus are the same in the matter of the administration of their respective religious trusts; therefore, according to the well established principles laid down by this Court with regard to legislative classification, it was open to the Bihar Legislature to exclude Sikhs who might have been in no need of protection and to distinguish between Hindus and Jains. Therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that the several provisions of the Act contravene Article 14 is devoid of any merit."
Ma Mi vs Kallander Ammal on 1 November, 1926
Then, their Lordships referred to the case of Ma Mi v. Kallander Ammal, AIR 1927 PC 22 decided by the Privy Council. That case related to a gift by a Mahomedan of immovable property in the Pegu district of Burma under a registered deed. The Local Government had extended the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act to Pegu district, but had not extended Section 129 of that Act. This was held to be unlawful, and, in dealing with the question, Sir John Wallis, who delivered the judgment of the Privy Council and who was a party to the Madras decision referred to above ILR 30 Mad 519, observed: