Mirasadar Rights = Mere entry in RSR in the name of plaintiff as Pattadar - Rent Recipt also not clear of which village it pertains - with out oral evidence about status of plaintiff , No court come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is the Mirasdar having right and title over the suit land - 2015 S.C. msklawreports ; Rights of Occupany tenants would entitle to remain in possession with heritable and transferable rights in respect of inam lands under the Inam Estate Abolition Act -2015 S.C. msklawreports


  Mirasadar Rights = Mere entry in RSR in the name of plaintiff as Pattadar - Rent Recipt also not clear of which village it pertains - with out oral evidence about status of plaintiff  , No court come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is the Mirasdar having right and title over the suit land - 2015 S.C. msklawreports

 The plaintiff's case was based on Patta  No.1.  Admittedly,  the
said  Patta  was  not  exhibited.  According  to  the  respondent-plaintiff,
Exhibit A-21 establishes the grant of the aforesaid Patta No.1 in favour  of
the  plaintiff.   We  have  perused  the  said  exhibit  which  is  a   Land
Resettlement Register.  Undoubtedly, the said  exhibit,  inter  alia,  shows
that Patta No.1 is in favour of Singaravelu  Mudali  Manager  for  the  time
being of Sri Kandaswamiyar Devasthanam.   Beyond  the  above,  Exhibit  A-21
does not throw any further light on the nature  and  extent  of  the  rights
conferred on the plaintiff by Patta No.1.  There is also  no  oral  evidence
on record to explain the nature of the rights granted under Patta No.1.   In
such a situation, the materials on  record  do  not  permit  any  conclusive
determination of the title of the plaintiff on the basis of Patta  No.1.
However,  the  High  Court
appears to have acted a little  hastily  in  accepting  the  status  of  the
plaintiff as Mirsadars solely on the basis of the description  contained  in
the rent receipts and further in accepting the position  that  as  Mirsadars
the plaintiff had  been  vested  with  title  to  the  suit  land
In the present case, the High Court proceeded to  recognize  the  status  of
the plaintiff as a Mirasdar and the right/title  of  the  plaintiff  to  the
suit land on that basis without there being  any  evidence  of  such  status
(Mirasdar) of the plaintiff the nature and extent  of  the  right  held  and
enjoyed by the plaintiff, even if its status as Mirasdar is assumed.

Rights of Occupany tenants would entitle to remain in possession with heritable and transferable rights in respect of inam lands under the Inam Estate Abolition Act -2015 S.C. msklawreports
Even if the abolition of the estate under the 1948 Act  had  not
been proved by the defendants, if the suit land is  included  in  an  estate
under the 1908 Act and the defendants were tenants under the  plaintiff  the
same would confer certain specific rights on the defendants under Section  6
of the 1908 Act.   Such  rights  which  would  flow  from  their  status  as
occupancy tenants would entitle the defendants to remain in possession  with
heritable and transferable right in respect of the land.  

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS