REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KUNHAMINA UMMA Appellant

V/S

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CULLEY V. TAYLORSON [REFERRED TO]
SALIMATUL FATIMA V. KOYALASHPATI NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GANGAMOY DEBI V. TROILUKHYA NATH [REFERRED TO]
COREA V. APPUHAMY [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI BALAJI V. DATTU [REFERRED TO]
PIARA V. FATNU [REFERRED TO]
KOTTAYYA V. KARANCHETI [REFERRED TO]
DASRATH V. LALLO [REFERRED TO]
PANDAPPA V. SHIVALINGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
KALU V. BAPURAO [REFERRED TO]
ARA BEGAM V. DEPUTY COMMR. GONDA [REFERRED TO]
VISHVANATH V. RAHIBAI [REFERRED TO]
KULSUMMUNNISA V. AHMADI BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
BHUTKANI NATH V. KAMALESWARI [REFERRED TO]
P LAKSHMI REDDY VS. L LAKSHMI REDDY [REFERRED TO]
AFSAR SHEIKH VS. SOLEMAN BIBI [REFERRED TO]
MISRI LAL VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
PENUMARTHY VEERA PANASA RAMANNA VS. PENUMARTHY SAMBAMOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
VOLETI VENKATA RAMA RAO VS. KASAPRAGADA BHASKARARAO [REFERRED TO]
DHARMADAS MONDAL VS. KASHI NATH DE [REFERRED TO]
ISHAK ALI VS. UNNASBI PORTHAHIN [REFERRED TO]
SUMATHI AMMA VS. KUNJULEKSHMI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
VELLIYOTTUMMEL SOOPPI VS. NADUKANDY MOOSSA [REFERRED TO]
K.CICILY V. SULAIKHA BEEVI [REFERRED TO]
ADICHAN AYYAN VS. KURUMPI [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHAN GANPAT FUTANE VS. MOHAMMAD KASAM [REFERRED TO]
INDERNATH MODI VS. NANDRAM [REFERRED TO]
N VARADA PILLAI VS. JEEVARATHNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DAS VS. THAKURJI [REFERRED TO]
MUNNALAL, MINOR VS. MST KASHIBAI [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDRAO VS. RAJABAI [REFERRED TO]
BULAKIDAS HARDAS MAHESARI VS. SK. CHOTU PAIKAN [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI EHTISHAM ALI VS. JAMNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a proceedings for apportionment of compensation for land acquired between rival claimants. The appellants are claimants 5 to 9 in l. A. O. P. 43/69 on the file of the Sub Court, Badagara. Two items of properties are involved in the proceedings. These properties are in Nochad village in Quilanday taluk. The first item is known as Edathil Porayi Paramba measuring 35 x 30 six feet koles and the other Uppilavulla-thil Paramba measuring 38 x 38 six feet koles. Claimants 1 and 2 are the jenmies and third claimant the intermediary with respect to the properties. The fourth claimant is Melcharthdar with regard to item 2.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY one Upathu Umma was the tenant in possession of both the items of the properties. Claimants 5 to 9 who are the wife and children of Soopi one of the sons of Upathu Umma claims that as per two documents executed by uppa-thu Umma in favour of Soopi on 22-7-1941, they have got exclusive tenancy rights over the acquired properties and the entire compensation in respect of the tenancy and occupancy rights in the properties should be paid to them. These documents are marked in the case as Exs. A15 and A16. Ex A15 is a deed of assignment and the other one of gift.

(3.) INCLUDING Soopi, Uppathu Umma had nine children. They are Mammad whose heirs are claimants 14 to 17, (2) Abdurahimankutty, whose heirs are claimants 18 to 24, (3) Assankutty whose sole heir is claimant 25, (4) Soopy, whose heirs as stated earlier are claimants 5 to 9, (5) Ibrayi who is the twelfth claimant, (6)Ayissa, (7) Kunhiabdulla, (8) Ummay-ya the thirteenth claimant and (9) Kunhi ummatha, whose heirs are claimants 10 and 11. Claimants 10 to 25 contested the claim of the heirs of Soopi. According to them Ex A15 the assignment deed on the basis of which the heirs of Soopi claim Edathil Porayi Paramba and Ex. A16 the gift deed on which they claim the Uppilavullathil Paramba did not convey any right to Soopi and they are entitled to compensation along with claimants 5 to 9 as regards the tenancy and occupancy rights which had belonged to Uppathu Umma.

Click here to view full judgment.

KUNHAMINA UMMA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address