REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HARKISHAN Appellant

V/S

DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JAGIR SINGH AND OTHERS V. NARAIN SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
T. DARAIMAJAN V. SRI KASI VISWANATHA SWAMY TEMPLE [REFERRED]
KUMAR DIGAMBER SINGH V. AHMAD SAYEED KHAN [REFERRED]
F. G. NATESA AIYAR AND OTHERS V. KAJA MARUF SAHIB [REFERRED]
NIBAS CHANDRA MANNA V. BIPIN BEHARI BOSE [REFERRED]
NANDU AND OIHER V. JAIMAL AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
CHANDER BHAN AND ANOTHER V. MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
MT. VAISHNO DITTI V. MT. RAMESHRI AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
ROSHAN LAL V. COLLECTOR OF-ETAH [REFERRED]
SAWAN-SINGH V. KARTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
LT. CHAUDHRI CHATTAR SINGH V. MT.SHUGNI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
HAKIM SINGH AND OTHERS V. COLLECTOR,GURDASPUR AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
SHER MOHAMMED AND OTHERS V. ZULFAGAR [REFERRED]
JAI NARAIN AND OTHERS V. MT. PARSANI [REFERRED]
SHRI SOMASHEKHAR SWAMI V. BAPUSAHEB NARAYANRAO PATIL [REFERRED]
LABH SINGH V. SURJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED RAM SAM DAS V. MULA SINGH,64 P. R. 1903.]
PRABHU DAYAL V. AMIN CHAND AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
GOKAL CHAND VS. PARVIN KUMARI [REFERRED]
CHHOTE KHAN VS. MALKHAN [REFERRED DINENDRA NARAIN ROY V. TITURAM MUKHERJEE,ILR 30 CALCUTTA 801.]
RAJA RAJINDER CHAND VS. SUKHI [REFERRED ANANT SINGH V. DURGA SINGH,32ALL. 363.]
HANUMAN PERSHAD VS. CHUNI ALIAS CHUNI LAL [REFERRED]
MULSHANKER SOMNATH VS. AGENT BHARATKHAND TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
SANTOSH KUMAR DHAR VS. NANDA KISHORE MALLICK [REFERRED]
RAMACHARYA NARAYANA CHARYA BURLI VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]
NANDA RANI DEBI VS. APCAR COLLIERIES LTD [REFERRED]
BATAN SINGH VS. NATHU BIRJU [REFERRED]
BIHARI LAL VS. HARINDER SINGH [REFERRED]
SHIAM LAL VS. COLLECTOR OF AGRA [REFERRED]
SUBHANI VS. NAWAB [REFERRED]
SHEOBARAN SINGH VS. KULSUM-UN-NISSA [REFERRED RAJIBULLA V. NADIR,120 P.R. 1881.]
COLLECTOR OF DACCA VS. GHOLAM KUDDUS CHOUDHURY [REFERRED]
SADASHEORAO KRISHNARAO BUTI VS. COLLECTOR [REFERRED]
DOSSIBAI NANABHOY JEEJEEBHOY VS. P.M. BHARUCHA [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It owned a vast area of land in Bahapor, which is a village situated within the District of Delhi a little beyond, the Okhla headwords as one goes south.

(2.) The society had owned this land since many decades. I was told that, originally, it was a gift to a Christian religious order made either by a Mughal emperor or a European princess. The record does not indicate the origin of the. softy's title, but there is no dispute that it was, the owner.

(3.) For generations the land was occupied by tenants. There were different tenants on different portions of the land. They paid rent at the rate of 3 annas. 4 pies per bigha per annum, which was also the rate of land revenue assessed on the land The society, however, did not, in fact, pay any land revenue because it was remitted (maufi). It has been proved, and is not now disputed, that the tenants had rights of occupancy under section 6 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887.

Click here to view full judgment.

HARKISHAN Vs. DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address