R.C.LAHOTI
GANGARAM – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COUNSEL, NAGAR PALIKA, NEEMUCH – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 25/74 (Smt. Seriubai v. Municipal Council, Neemuch) arising in similar facts and raising similar questions for decision. Facts relating to S. A. No. 277/72 :
( 2 ) S. A. No. 277/72 is by Gangaram S/o Bharaji resident of Neemuch, who having expired, his legal representatives have been brought on record. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was a pakka tenent of garden No. 12 situated within limits of Neemuch Municipality and that recovery of Rs. 4,384/- from the plaintiff was void, with consequent injunction restraining the recovery. According to the plaintiff though the land was held by him as a lessee of the Neemuch Municipality; but by operation of law he had become Bhumiswami; the land being in reality owned by the State, the Municipality having no right and title therein and hence any demand on account of rent payable under the lease at the instance of the Neemuch Municipality was null and void.
( 3 ) THE facts and documents brought on record go to show that on 1-6-1939 late Bharaji was having a lease for a period of 10 years commencing lst April 1939 and expiring 31/03
Relied on : Surajbali Ram v. Dhani Bau
Koncheda Ramamurty Subuddi (dead) by his legal representative v. Gopinath Naik
Cantonment Board, Ambala v. Pyarelal
H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality
Referred to : Chandrika Prasad v. Bombay Baroda and Central India R y. Co.
Referred to : Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry
Bhagwati Devi v. Surendrajit Singh
State of Punjab v. British India Corporation Ltd.
Referred to : Bookka Sreeramulu v. Kalipathuanu Venketeswar Rao
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.