Advanced Search Results

R. Ramanujam Vs. D. Venkat Rao and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Sections 2, 14 and 24(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(11); Constitution of India - Article 141

Reported in : AIR1982AP227

after Rajayya's death, even though he was Rajayya's nephew and living with him as a member of his family , since he does not come under any of the categories of the persons mentioned in S.2 (ix) … rent of Rs.100 per month from 1-2-71. As she failed to pay the rents from 1-2-1971 terminating the tenancy of Seethamma and asked her to vacate the premises by January, 1973 and demanded her to pay rupees

Ram Awalamb and ors. Vs. Jata Shankar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Property

Acts : Tenancy Law; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 4, 6, 18, 143, 152, 175, 209 and 331; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 105; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9 and 20; Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Sections 39

Reported in : AIR1969All526; MANU/UP/0100/1969

family as separate units or whether the framers of the Act intended that in certain cases where the tenancy was of the joint Hindu family the bhumidhari rights be deemed to be conferred on the entire joint … 1967 was for the cancellation of three sale deeds executed by defendant no. 7, one member of the family only (who, if separated, could have a half share in the joint family property) for self and as

Shri.Irappa Basavanni Kamate vs Shri.Gurusidda Apraj Kamate

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

court meticulously analyzed these details and reached a conclusion that aligns with the established legal principles governing joint family tenancy. The defendants, having taken the stance that their father, Mallappa, cultivated- 14 -the lands in his individual capacity,

Kiran Devi Vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

in the premises in question was representing a 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ 1 joint Hindu family and that the Karta was not competent to surrender the tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.1-The Bihar

Nanumal Rijumal Vs. Lilaram Vensimal and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Tenancy

Reported in : (1977)18GLR858

and, therefore, we formulated the following points for discussion:(i) Does Section 5(11)(c)(i) postulate all members of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of his death, or within three months immediately preceding his death, … for eviction and this appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge holding that the notice terminating the tenancy as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served on defendent No. 2

Smt. Nafeeza vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Ningappa Avanna Astekar v. State - and others in W.P.No.24925/1990 dated 05.08.1990 to justify resumption based on joint family tenancy, overlooking the non obstante clause in Section 44(2) of the Act. The Act bars the application of customary

Narinder Kumar Vs. Parvati Devi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6

Reported in : 1981RLR168

commercial purpose) was granted in the name of the firm Fateh Chand Bhawani Dass run by Hindu Undivided Family, (H.U.F.) since the time of Bhawani Dass. Even at the time of notice business was being carried out … one Fateh Chand. Bhawani Dass died in 1963. The present respondent purchased the suit house in 1969. The tenancy of Fateh Chand was terminated in September, 1970 by a notice. In reply to the said notice late

T.R. Ganesh Row Alias Venkat Row Vs. T.V. Tulja Ram Row and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Reported in : (1914)26MLJ460

one of the co-parceners of a portion of the joint family property puts an end to the joint tenancy and converts the co-parceners into tenants in common. And Benson and Miller JJ, in Srinivasa Thatha Chariar v. … entered into by the plaintiff's father did not bind his own share in the property of the joint family which consisted at the time of the plaintiff and his father, or that the compromise must not in

T.R. Ganesh Row Alias Venkat Row Vs. T.V. Tulga Ram Row and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : AIR1914Mad91; 24Ind.Cas.696

one of the co-parceners of a portion of the joint family property pats an end of the joint tenancy and converts the co-parceners into tenants-in-common. And Banson and Miller, JJ., in Srinivasa, Sundara Thathachariar v. Krishnasamy Iyengar … entered into by the plaintiff's father did not bind his own share in the property of the joint family which consisted at the time of the plaintiff and his father, or that the compromise must not in

Madhu Kishwar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 2(2), 4(2), 6 to 8, 14 and 15; Indian Succession Act, 1925; Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969; Constitution of India - Articles 13(3), 14, 15, 16, 21, 39, 41, 46, 51 and 366; Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Sections 7 and 8; Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplymentary Provisions) Act, 1949; Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplymentary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1958; Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 12; Punjab Preemption Act, 1930 - Sections 15; Hindu Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Passport Act, 1967; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 13(1); (Kullaiamma Thumporan Korilakam Society Partition) Act, 1961; Kerala Hindu Joint Family Abolition Act,

Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)137; AIR1996SC1864; JT1996(4)SC379; 1996(3)SCALE640; (1996)5SCC125; [1996]Supp1SCR442

The tribal women toil, share with men equally the daily sweat, troubles and tribulations in agricultural operations and family management. Their discrimination based on the customary law of inheritance is unconstitutional, unjust, unfair and illegal. Even usufructuary … woman from Chhota Nagpur area. They seek declaration that Sections 7, 8, and 76 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 6 of 1908, (for short, the 'Act') are ultra vires Articles 14 15 and 21 of the