| Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
| 16 | STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs. BRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH | Coram: PUNCHHI, M.M. | 11/06/1993 | % Constitution of India, 1950: Article 13- Farman issued by a Ruler of an erstwhile Indian State--Sovereign will could be expressed in any manner and it becomes binding as law. Transfer of Property Act, Title to property-Merger of States- Erstw | The building in dispute viz. a double storeyed building has been in the 945 occupation of the State Public Works Department. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming that he was the owner of the building and that the possession by the | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 17 | K.T. HUCHEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER | Coram: SINGH N.P. (J) | 18/03/1994 | Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978-Sections 4 & 5-Grant of Land-Trans-fer in contravention of terms of grant-Application for restoration-Title by prescription-Period of limitation-To be | Dispossing of the appeal this Court HELD : 1.1. In cases where granted lands had been transfered before the commencement of the Act in violation of the condition, regarding prohibition on such transfer and the transferee who had initially acquired | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 18 | DR BHARGAVA & CO. Vs. SHYAM SUNDER SETH | Coram: KULDIP SINGH (J) | 12/07/1994 | Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955:Rule 90 Sub-Rule(15). Auction Sale-Purchase of evacuee property-Title to auc-tion purchaser-When passes-Suit for recovery of immovable property pur-chased in auction sale-Period of Limitat | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. There is no ground to interefere with the conclusions reached by the trial court as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. [451-F] 2. It is obvious from sub-rule (15) of Rule 90 of the Displ | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 19 | N. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. R. GOPALA PATHAR | Coram: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) | 09/09/1994 | Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 107 and 108. Evidence-Presumption as to death-Person not heard of for more than seven years-Exact time of death is not a matter of presumption-Burden of proof to prove death-On Whom lies. Hindu Women's Rights to Pro | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : The judgment of the High Court is justified in law and no interference is called for. The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove that G died after coming into force of the Hindu Women's Right to Prop | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 20 | SHYAM SUNDAR DUTTA Vs. BAIKUNTHA NATH BANERJEE | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 21/09/1994 | Tenancy Laws : Bengal Tenancy Act. Suit for partition-Appointment of Receiver-Tenants inducted by him-Receiver was discharged after the suit was decreed-Whether tenants inducted by him acquired tenancy rights pursuant to the tenancy created by h | Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. It is settled law that a Receiver when appointed to manage the suit property, acts as an officer of the Court. Unless the Court grants permission to induct any third party into possession as a tenant in | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 21 | ISMAIL FARUQUI Vs. UNION OF INDIA | Coram: M.N.VENKATACHALLIAH CJI , A.M.AHMADI , JAGDISH SARAN VERMA , G.N.RAY , S.P.BHARUCHA | 24/10/1994 | Constitution of India-Article 143 (1)-Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993-S.4 (3)-Constitutionality of-Whether reference made under Article 143 (1) is effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism-Held, (per majority) the question f | Returning the Reference and disposing of the matters, this Court HELD : (per majority) (By J.S. Verma, J. for himself M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J., G.N. Ray. J.) 1. The legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Acquisition of Certain Are | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 22 | KULDIP MAHATON AND OTHERS Vs. BHULAN MAHATO AND OTHERS | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 30/11/1994 | Widow inheriting property as life estate prior to the Hindu Womens' Right to Property Act-After her death Succession opened to reversioners- Adopted son making claim-Appellate Court disbelieving his version but hold that he acquired title to the prop | Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. It is not the case of the first respondent as found by the appellate court, that after the succession to the reversioner was opened on the demise of M, he ousted the appellant from possession of the lands | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 23 | ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. BALWANT AND BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL(DEAD) BY LRS. & HEIRS | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 06/01/1995 | Hindu law-Hindu Joint family-Primogeniture-Impartible estate- Rule of succession by survivorship-To establish that a family ceases to be joint it is necessary to prove intention on part of junior members to renounce their right of succession to e | Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. Primogeniture means first born and denotes the preferential rights of the senior most in age to succeed to the estate in preference to his younger brother. In an impartible estate though the other rig | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 24 | VIDYA DEVI @ VIDYA VATI (DEAD)BY L.RS. Vs. PREM PRAKASH & ORS. | Coram: VENKATACHALA N. (J) | 10/05/1995 | Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 Ss.55(l), 185 r/w Schedule 1-Suit by co- bhumidar for partition resisted by setting up defence of title by adverse possession of entire property - Held (per majority) , there being no period of limitation for filing | Allowing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. (Per majority) (Venkatachala J. for himself & Kuldip Singh, J.). When no period of limitation is fixed for filing a suit for partition by co-bhumidars against his other co- bhumidars in respect of a jo | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 25 | PT. SHAMBOO NATH TIKOO AND OTHERS Vs. SARDAR GIAN SINGH AND OTHERS | Coram: K. RAMASWAMY , N. VENKATACHALA | 30/06/1995 | Property Law : Transfer of Property Act, l882/Easements Act 1882-Disputed property-Lands, Dharamshallas, temples and springs situated in Anantnag, State of Jammu & Kashmir,-Suit filed by the plaintiffs i.e. Hindus-(a) for ejectment of the defendan | All efforts to bring the present dispute to an amicable settlement having failed, this Court on merits. HELD : 1. the plea of grant, by Maharaja Pratap Singh having not been earlier put forward by the defendants In their written statement, the | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 26 | MAHAVIR & ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs. THE RURAL INSTITUTE, AMRAVATI & ANR. ETC.ETC. | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 28/07/1995 | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 4(1), 6, 9, 10 and 16. Land Acquisition-Notification under section 4(1)-Sale of land by owner subsequent to Notification-Possession of land taken by State after due compliance with provisions-Transfer of lan | Dismissing the petitions, this Court HELD : 1. The sales made after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are void sales and the State is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner. [422-C-D] 2 | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 27 | ABUBAKAR ABDUL INAMDAR (DEAD)BY LRS. AND OTHERS. Vs. HARUN ABDUL INAMDAR AND OTHERS | Coram: PUNCHHI, M.M. | 30/08/1995 | Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 : Muslim Law-Succession-Inamdar-Death-Impartible Inam lands devolving on eldest son by Rule of primogeniture-Abolition of Inams-Eldest son regarded as a Watandar on re-grant | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Estate of S should normally have devolved upon his children in accordance with the shares as defined by the Shariat Law. But since the properties were Inams and impartible and the services to the Ruler | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 28 | R. CHANDEVARAPPA ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. ETC. | Coram: RAMASWAMY, K. | 08/09/1995 | Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978-Karnataka Revenue Code. Ss.3(b) 4/r.43(5)-Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-Allotment of Granted Lands-Alienation-Prohi | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The cultivation chit under which the assignee had come into possession prescribes that the assignee should be in personal cultivation of the land and that it should not be alienated. It is also state | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 29 | A.T.S. CHINNASWAMI CHETTIAR ETC. Vs. SRI KARI VARADARAJA PERUMAL TEMPLE & ANOTHER | Coram: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) | 22/09/1995 | Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 : Sections 3(g), 8(1), 8(2) (i)(b), 44-Land given to a temple as Devadayam Religious Inam of Dennanent character and confirmed under a Title deed- Abolition of Minor Inams-Al | Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The Settlement Tehsildar though negatived the contention of the appellants that by reason of the partition deed dated 17.2.1888 and subsequent numerous sale deeds, it must be deemed that the first re | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 30 | P.PERIASAMI (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. P. PERIATHAMBI AND OTHERS | Coram: PUNCHHI, M.M. | 11/10/1995 | Hindu Law : Self-acquired property of a male Hindu, dying intestate-Devolution of-Elder of parties survived by sons but no grandsons-Subsequently accretions made to descended property out of income received, from it-Suit for partition of descen | Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD: 1. The self-acquired properties left by 'A', the common ancestor, there being no grandsons of 'A' at the time of his death, cannot be held by the two branches as joint Hindu family properties because the | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
Comments
Post a Comment