| Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
| 1 | SHEO NAND & ORS. C Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD AND ORS. | Coram: Y.K.SABHARWAL, R.C.LAHOTI | 03/02/2000 | U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Sections 9, 11-C (As intro-duced by Act XXXV of 1974). U.P. Land Records Manual. Escheat-Land-Recorded tenure-holder-Civil death of-No heirs of recorded tenure-Holder-Claim by certain persons on the b | Held, it is statutory duty of all authorities to give effect to the provisions of Section 11-C even if no claim was laid by Gaon Sabha-Even though the provisions of Section 11-C were not available to the Deputy Director at the time of the decision | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 2 | RESHMU AND ORS. Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS. | Coram: S. SAGHIR AHMED , Y.K. SABHARWAL | 16/02/2000 | Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 20 Rule 14(1)-Pre-emption---Land in question sold by joint owner-Pre-emption suit filed by original plaintiff who was the son of other joint owner-Suit decreed in favour of original plaintiff and pre-emption amount | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. A plain reading of Order 20 Rule 14(1) CPC shows that the title of the decree holder accrues from the date of the payment required to be made under a pre-emption decree. [896-F] 2. In view of the de | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 3 | ROOP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS | Coram: M.B.SHAH, DORASWAMI RAJU | 28/03/2000 | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : S.I 00-Second appeal-Jurisdiction of High Court-Agricultural land- Illegal possession-Suit by owner for restoration of possession-Defendant contending purchase of land-Also claiming to have perfected title by adve | Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Under Section 100 of the CPC jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve substantial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdicti | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 4 | STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARPHOOL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. | Coram: S.R.BABU, DORASWAMI RAJU | 04/05/2000 | Adverse possession-Proof of-Plaintiff claiming adverse possession on a land belonging to State Government-Mere vague assertions-No concrete or material proof to substantiate the claim-Allowed by Trial Court-Affirmed by first appellate court and Hi | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The materials on record do not substantiate respondent- plaintiff's claim for perfection of title by adverse possession to the public property. Thus, Trial Court was not justified in holding that the a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 5 | KALI PRASAD & ORS. Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS. | Coram: Y.K.SABHARWAL, S.S.M.QUADRI | 26/07/2000 | U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958 : Sections 209, 210 and Section 33Jr/w Schedule II/Section 1(2)-Respondents 3 and 4 found to be asamis and the appellants to be in | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 contemplates filing of suit for ejectment of a person occupying land without title. In the civil litigation which started after the | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 6 | MARWARI KUMHAR AND ORS. Vs. BHAGWANPURI GURU GANESHPURI AND ANR. | Coram: V.N. KHARE , S.N. VARIAVA | 10/08/2000 | Evidence Act, 1872-Section 65(c), (f)-Secondary evidence-In case of public documents which is lost or destroyed-Whether admissible in evi-dence-Held, Yes. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Suit for declaration-Between appellants and respondents becomi | Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Under sub-clause (c) of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, where the original has been lost or destroyed, then secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. Sub-clause (c) is independ | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 7 | BALKRISHAN Vs. SATYAPRAKASH & ORS. | Coram: RUMA PAL, S.S.M.QUADEI | 22/01/2001 | Land Laws: Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: Section 250-Adverse possession- Suit land under orders of attachment was purchased by plaintiff from its owners-In the auction sale of the suit land R purchased it-Application filed by R for | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove three "nec"-nec vi, nec clam and nec precario. In other words, he must show that his possession is adequate in continuity, in publicity and in ex | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 8 | SANTOSH HAZARI Vs. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI (DEAD) BY LRS. | Coram: CJI, R.C. LAHOTI, BRIIJESH KUMAR. | 08/02/2001 | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 100-Second appeal-Scope of-Held, jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a second appeal is restricted to substantial question of law involved in the case-Substantial question of law involved in the appeal | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The first appellate Court did not discharge the duty cast on it as a Court of first appeal. The High Court having noticed failure on the part of the appellant in not discharging the statutory obligation c | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 9 | BABU KHAN AND OTHERS Vs. NAZIM KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS | Coram: V.N. KHARE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL | 16/04/2001 | Land Laws : Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 : Section 91-Proceedings under-Nature of-Tenant-Reinstatement of- Civil suit- Maintainability of-Pucca tenant filed application before Revenue authorities for his reinstatement as h | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The applicant under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 has to prove and establish that he is a pucca tenant and that he has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 10 | DARSHAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. GUJJAR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. | Coram: V.N. KHARE, S.N. PHUKAN | 08/01/2002 | Succession-Right of inheritence-Land of two brOrs. in possession of descendants of one brother-Suit by collateral claiming succession to the land-Other brother not heard for 7 years-Date of his death not proved- Descendants got their names mutated | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. If a co-sharer is in possession of the entire property, his possession cannot be deemed to be adverse for other co-sharers unless there has been an ouster of other co-sharers. Possession of a property b | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 11 | MADHUKAR D. SHENDE Vs. TARABAI ABA SHEDAGE | Coram: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR | 09/01/2002 | Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 68-Will-Proof of execution of- Burden of proof lies on propounder to prove competence of testator and execution of will in the manner contemplated by law-preponderance of probabilities and shifting of onus-suspici | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The requirement of proof of a will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succe | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 12 | KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJI Vs. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. | Coram: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN | 29/01/2002 | Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982: Sections 2 to 10,15 and 17-B. Land Grabbing-Offence of-Essential ingredients for-Object of the Act explained. Land grabbing-Appellant in occupation of land pursuant to lease executed by a | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The view of the High Court approving the view taken by the Special Court that the appellant falls within the mischief of the definition of the expression "land grabber" under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Pr | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 13 | MOOL CHAND BAKHRU & ANR. Vs. ROHAN & OTHERS | Coram: V.N. KHARE, ASHOK BHAN | 29/01/2002 | Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 53-A-Agreement to sell-Part performance of contract-Claim for-Written agreement to sell-Necessity of- Letters written by transferor agreeing to sell his part of the share in property-Letters not spelling out | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property, in writing signed by him or on his behalf from which t | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 14 | Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai & Anr. | Coram: RUMA PAL, S.B. SINHA. | 20/11/2002 | Code of Civil Procedure. 1908: Section 11-Principle of constructive res judicata-Applicability of- The issue which could and ought to have been raised in a proceeding, but not raised would be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It may be true that normally High Court does not pass an order under Section 24 C.P.C. in a disposed of proceeding. However, in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indisputably the High | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 15 | Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil & Ors. Vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. | Coram: BRIJESH KUMAR, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI | 19/02/2003 | Hindu Law: Suit for partition of Watan/Inam lands-Dismissed by Trial Court- Reversed by First Appellate Court-High Court recognised the right of plaintiff to the extent of l/3rd share in the suit land-Held: Appellate Court on consideration of r | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The question of relationship and the dispute on the correctness of the pedigrees produced by the parties in the case for proof of relationship of the parties with the original ancestor is essentially a | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
Comments
Post a Comment