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

1968 Supreme(Ker) 43

P.GOVINDA NAIR, M.S.MENON
MADHAVI – Appellant
Versus
KANARAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants in this Second Appeal which has been adjourned for hearing by a Division Bench by a learned single judge of this Court.

2. The question for consideration is whether appellants 1, 5 and 8 (appellant 1 died and his legal representatives have been impleaded) are entitled to the benefit of the provisos to Clause vii of sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Land Reforms Act, 1963. The trial court rejected the plea of the appellants in this regard and the matter does not seem to have been argued before or considered by the lower appellate court. We have permitted the point being agitated before us since this question, which is the main question, is a pure question of law and has been raised at the earliest time and urged before the trial court.

3. S.3 of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 exempts from the provisions of Chapter II thereof in which the section occurs certain kinds of leases. It is sufficient for our purposes to notice the tenancies mentioned in clauses (v) and (vi) of sub-section (1) of S.3. These relate respectively to tenancies in respect of land or of building or of both, created by mortgagees in possession or by persons deriving title








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