TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside order on tenancy issue, stresses need for specific claim details.</h1> <h3>D.M. Deshpande & Ors. Versus Shri Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the framing of an issue related to tenancy and the handover of ... - Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the validity of executing a scheme as a decree, the claim of tenancy by the first respondent, and the direction to refer the issue of tenancy to the Tehsildar under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.Validity of Executing Scheme as Decree: The trustees of a public Trust filed an Execution Application seeking possession of Trust property under a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner. The High Court upheld the validity of executing the scheme as a decree but directed the issue of tenancy to be referred to the Tehsildar under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.Claim of Tenancy by First Respondent: The first respondent claimed tenancy over the Trust property, Survey No. 14, without providing specific details such as the date of creation of tenancy, the creator of the tenancy, or the rent payable. The appellants contended that the claim of tenancy was collusive and lacked material particulars required for raising an issue. The Executing Court rejected the claim, and possession of the land was handed over to the Trust.Direction to Refer Issue of Tenancy: The High Court directed the Trust to hand over possession of the land to the first respondent based on the claim of tenancy. The appellants challenged this direction, arguing that the claim of tenancy was vague and lacked essential material facts required for framing an issue. The appellants relied on legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of disclosing details of tenancy before raising an issue.Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the framing of an issue related to tenancy and the handover of possession to the first respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of providing material particulars in claims of tenancy and highlighted that a vague plea does not justify the framing of an issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
