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

1969 Supreme(P&H) 32

D.K.MAHAJAN, SHAMSHER BAHADUR, R.S.NARULA
Jagan Nath Piare Lal – Appellant
Versus
Mittar Sain – Respondent


Judgment

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This case was referred to a Full Bench by my Lord, the Chief Justice, in pursuance of my referring order dated March 16, 1967. The reference was necessitated because of the following observations of Dua J. in Dr. Gian Singh Karam Singh v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1964 Punj 846:

".... It has been emphasised that it is only if the mortgagee had himself created a tenancy that one could hold the tenancy not to enure beyond the period of the mortgage. Whether the observations in the judgment in Mam Rajs case, that execution of a fresh rent-note made no difference on the facts and circumstances of that case is right or wrong does not directly concern us, for, we are not sitting on appeal against that judgment. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision, however, which was also binding on the learned Judge deciding Mam Rajs case (Mam Raj v. Rasheshar Parshad), Civil Revn. No. 332 of 1961, decided on the 2nd of March, 1962 (Punj), is clear."

The facts of Mam Rajs case, Civil Revn. No. 332 of 1961, D/-2-S-1962 (Pun), were, that a shop in dispute belonging to Rameshwar Dass had been let out by him to Mam Raj. During the currency of the tenancy, the Patiala and East Punjab State












































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