SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Kar) 132

N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
ZAHEERA BANU KAREEM – Appellant
Versus
GOMATHI BAI G. KAMATH – Respondent


Advocates:
A.NAGARAJAPPA, K.R.D.KARANTH, K.R.KARANTH, S.V.RAGHAVACHAR

N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) PURSUANT to the reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 31-10-1991 in civil appeal No. 624 of 1973 finding of this court is given on the point, viz. , "legal effect of the order of the restoration of the land in favour of bashir ahmed".

( 2 ) IN order to see that both sides are given sufficient opportunity to establish their case, this case was adjourned many times as requested by both sides. Thus the matter was heard on several dates of hearing. On the point involved both sides made me to go through various documents produced in the case, important sections of the Mysore land revenue code and the Bombay land revenue code, Section 43 of the Transfer Of Property Act and the authorities relied upon by both sides in support of their rival contentions.

( 3 ) TO give a finding on the point of reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proper to mention a few facts, as their narration will avoid the confusion which had set in. Originally one kaushik was the owner of the lands in dispute. He sold the said lands to one syed basheer ahmed in the year 1942. The said syed basheer ahmed did not pay the land revenue in respect of the l
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top