Jammu and Kashmir Court October 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohammad HussaIn and Etc. Etc. Vs. Rahim and anr., Etc. Etc.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1987J& K48
Bhat, J. 1. By virtue of Act No. VIII of 1981, Sections 19(e) and 25(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act came to be amended and in view of the said amendment, a reference came to be made by a learned single Judge of this Court (Kolwal J) in Civil Second Appeal No. 27/1981 on 15th Sept. 1982. The matter was referred to the Full Bench for determination of the following two questions :i) Does the view taken in the Full Bench judgment of this Court namely Jagtu v. Badri reported in supplement to JKLR Vol. X hold good even after Clause (e) of Section 19 of the Act has been amended by virtue of Act No. VIII of 1981? ii) Whose opinion will prevail where the Civil Court says that certain disputes raised in the suit before it are triable by the Collector under Section 19 of the Act, but the Collector on reference says that the same are triable by the Civil Court itself? 2. In order to understand the controversy properly, it is necessary to refer to the law which was framed in the y...
Haji Fateh Rather and Etc. Vs. Anwar Sheikh and ors.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Oct-31-1985
Reported in: AIR1987J& K45
Bhat, J. 1. An important question of law of general importance has been referred to this bench by a learned single Judge of this court for determination. The question formulated by the learned single Judge is as under : --'What is the true scope and meaning of second part of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act; and in particular, whether a lease for any term below one year and reserving a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- is compulsorily registerable under the Act.'2. In fact this question has arisen because in S. Mohinder Singh v. Sh. Mohinder Singh reported in 1980 Srinagar LJ 158, Kotwal, J. has held that a document of lease of immoveable property which is for a period of less than a year and does not reserve yearly rent is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Therefore, validity of this authority also is called in question by the referring Judge,3. Section 107 of the T. P. Act is in two parts and there is a proviso added to it. For proper appreciation of the question i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›