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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more