Central Provinces Court Of Wards Act 1899 Section 9 Superintendence By Court Of Wards Whre Disqualified Land Holder Owns Land In More Than One Divison - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: central provinces court of wards act 1899 section 9 superintendence by court of wards whre disqualified land holder owns land in more than one divison Page 1 of about 712,082 results (0.598 seconds)Rani Annapurnabai Vs. Court of Wards Through the Collector, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: AIR1967Bom394; (1967)69BOMLR490; 1967MhLJ450
and (c) 'land-holder' means a malguzar as defined in the Central Provinces Land-revenue Act, 1881, and the Zamindar of any Zamindari (c) 'land-holder' means a malguzar as defined in the Central Provinces Land-revenue Act, 1881, and the Zamindar of any Zamindari in the purposes of this Act.' The Commissioner is constituted the Court of Wards for his area (section 3), but now it to be managed under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, and the answer had to be in the affirmative to 33 or reading of any limitation on the right of action is intended by the legislature.(31) A somewhat anomalous position is the meaning of the C. P. Court of Wards Act, 1899. . . . . . . .'(14) The learned counsel disqualified to manage their own property is elaborately provided in section5. Thus, minors or persons adjudged by Court to be of refer to the observations made in this context at page 99 of the report:-'.......By Section 3 of the Act a Government Ward. The Primary object, according to the respondents, for assuming superintendence over the estate of a person, is to save immovable for the purposes of section 4, be deemed to be disqualified to manage their own property, namely;- (a) minors; (b) persons are included a malguzar as defined in the C. P. Land-revenue Act, and the Zamindar of any Zamindari in a Scheduled is reason to believe that the heirs of the land holders are such as could be adjudged disqualified under section. When on the debts and liabilities due by the zamindar exceeds one-third of the average annual profits of the preceding five years;
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTGajraj Das and anr. Vs. Kripa Sindhu Das
Court: Kolkata
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.160
a Court of Civil Judicature of first instance under the Central Provinces Civil Courts Act, 1885.'3. At that time (1889), the a Court of Civil Judicature of first instance under Central Provinces Civil Courts Act, 1904.' In that case, the appeal would the Act of 1901, it will be evident that the Court of the Deputy Commissioner corresponds as nearly as may be in other enactments, such as the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, would be construed as referring to the Act of 1904. Court of a Deputy Commissioner but a District Court. If Sections 6 and 10 of the Act of 1585 be compared extent by the decision in Raghunath Singh v. Abdhut Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 202 : 38 C. 391 : 13 C.L.J. of 1885 in other enactments, such as the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, would be construed as referring to the Act
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAmbi Pundalik and anr. Vs. Pundalik Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1167
Court-fees Act, 1870, the Suits Valuatio Act, 1887, and the Central Provinces Courts Act, 1917, be treated as if the subject enactments. The relevant enactment in this respect is the Central Provinces and berar Courts Act, 1917. That Act contemplates two classes lowest grade. Such a problem does not arise when a Court of exclusive jurisdiction has been created for certain proceedings under a District Court for the purpose of the Hindu Marriage Act, then naturally appeal from the decisions of such Courts will must be instituted in the District Court. Of course, under Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act it is open to of civil nature. this rule has been framed under Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and Section 9 also refers Code where there is concurrent jurisdiction vested in more than one court, the suit has got to be instituted in the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBalbhadra Vs. Bhowani
Court: Kolkata
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal853
Act, 1904).3. The district of Sambalpore was part of the Central Provinces until the 16th October 1905. It was then added provisions of Section 15, Act II of 1904 (The Central Provinces Courts Act, 1904).3. The district of Sambalpore was part of altered by an erroneous interpretation put upon it by the Courts of the Central Provinces. Possession of the property may not reversionary rights, which under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act is enough to justify their bringing this suit. In fact, to the High Court' on the grounds specified in the section' Now it would seem that under Clause 24, Section 3 that the plaintiffs are reversionary heirs to the estate of one Hari Suar deceased--which estate is now in the possession of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBrundaban Chandra Dhir Narendra Vs. the State of Orissa in the Revenue ...
Court: Orissa
Reported in: AIR1953Ori121
The fifth category appears to have been borrowed from the Central Provinces Act. There is one additional category under Clause (f) are to be found also in the Bengal and Central Provinces Acts. The fifth category appears to have been borrowed from in which the Madhupur Estate is situated; the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act (Act 24 of 1891) and the Madras copy of a report of the enquiry made by the Wards Deputy Collector jointly with the Sub-divisional Officer, Jajpur in December strained as he could not be persuaded to indulge in active canvassing for the Congress candidate, viz., the said Sri Motilal of Sambalpur, the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act of 1899 was in force. To the rest of the Province, the of the State Government was drawn to the requirements of Section 10, Clause (f), Sub-clause (iv). All that the deponent affirms Act (Act 7 of 1876); the Bengal Cess Act (Act 9 of 1880); the Estates Partition Act (Act 5 of 1897); the taking over by the Court of Wards of' the superintendence of his properties. While, as already stated, the Court may or (f) of Section 10 declare the proprietor to be disqualified. The question has not been raised or argued before us grant receipts, unauthorised collection of petition fees, lease of gochar lands to private persons and bad management of office. All thqse Act includes every person who owns land. The expression 'who owns or has a life-interest' can therefore refer only to the From the above detailed consideration, it is clear that if one has to go merely by the material disclosed by the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1962Mad450
cases. Act XIV of 1926 was there-upon passed by the Central Legislature by introducing, Sec. 29 in the existing Madras Civil pro-vision in the Punjab Civil Courts Act, 1918; the Central Provinces Courts Act. 1917 and the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, (1956)2MLJ288 acid the earlier decision of a Bench of this court in ILR 55 Mad 701: AIR 1932 Mad 456 holding terms in which Sec. 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act is enacted that the subordinate Judge invested with a power to him by the notification of the High Court under section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act.'If I may say would naturally have. been described as any proceedings under part IX of the Indian Succession Act with which alone district delegates bound to do, returned the application which was a contentious one, for presentation to the appropriate court. The appellant who thereupon
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ318
in the Madras Civil Courts Act, which is also a Central enactment. It must be noticed that there was legislation in Civil Courts Act similar to those in force in other provinces, enabling the High Court by a general or special order in the Punjab Civil Courts Act, 1918, the Central Provinces Courts' Act, 1917 and the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, the Section 23 of the Bengal, Assam and Agra Civil Courts Act which is similar in terms to the provision in the that a Subordinate Judge duly authorised by a notification under Section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act will be competent the grant of probate or letters of administration under Part IX of the Indian Succession Act and not to applications under not to be read literally must be able to show one of two things;--either that there is some other section which
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRaja Lalitkumar Singh S/O Late Raja Chakradhar Singh Vs. State of Madh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Reported in: AIR1961MP197
of Indian States, be the powers and functions of the Central Government.'We would therefore assume the Act to be valid except Judge, Raigarh (respondent 4), under Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), and land within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Wards. (iii) Previous sanction of the appropriate Government has of the superintendence of the estate by the Court of Wards because the petitioner is not a land-holder within the meaning functions conferred on the State Government by or under this Act shall, in relation to the estates of Rulers of Indian Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), and also the two orders passed our opinion, this contention is not correct. As we read Section 4 of the Act, the following conditions must co-exist before with the previous sanction of the State Government, assume the superintendence of the property of any land-holder owning land within the about 'persons' and if it be found that they are disqualified, the declaration of the District judge can be used only the Court of Wards because the petitioner is not a land-holder within the meaning of the Act or because, for other
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTZankarsingh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Reported in: AIR1957MP78
for the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is whether was unable to act independently. The Provincial Government and the Court of Wards together were in the position of a trustee the part of the Provincial Government and the Court of Wards and the loss caused to the plaintiff is the direct ascribed to the defendants as part of the cause of action. As the actual management admittedly was in charge of the Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in the person primarily responsible for the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. reason therefor.6. In Nazir Abbas v. Ajamshah, ILR (1947) Nag 955: (AIR 1949 Nag 60) (A), a Division Bench of this of the Court of Wards with effect from 8-12-1930. Its superintendence terminated on 16-4-1946 when the estate was returned to the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTG. Rengaraja Rao Vs. A. Tulasibai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ650
Bombay Civil Courts Act of 1869, Section 19 of the Central Provinces Courts. Act (I of 1917) and Section 30 of Civil Courts Act of 1869, Section 19 of the Central Provinces Courts. Act (I of 1917) and Section 30 of the that power was intended to be conferred on the High Court in Madras also, on the recommendations contained in the report such to entertain applications under Part X of the Succession Act also, in the circumstances of the case, I order that now under consideration, so far as Succession Certificate Act of 1899 and Part X of the Indian Succession Act are concerned, is this: whether a notification by the High Court under Section 29 (1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act would vest Ammal who is said to have executed a will dated 9th March, 1944, bequeathing all her properties to her daughter. The to the respondent Tulasi Bai. She is the daughter of one Venkobai Ammal who is said to have executed a will
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>