<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (8) TMI 140 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199575</link>
    <description>A temple holding a muafi Devasthani grant is presumed to be a public religious institution unless the contrary is proved, and the deity installed there is a juristic person within the disabled category under Section 168(2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An agricultural lease without an express term is treated as a year-to-year lease and may be determined by reasonable notice requiring cessation from the start of the next agricultural year; such termination falls within the phrase &quot;on the lease ceasing to be in force&quot; under Section 168(4). On that basis, the lease was treated as validly determined and ejectment was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:19:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 140 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199575</link>
      <description>A temple holding a muafi Devasthani grant is presumed to be a public religious institution unless the contrary is proved, and the deity installed there is a juristic person within the disabled category under Section 168(2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. An agricultural lease without an express term is treated as a year-to-year lease and may be determined by reasonable notice requiring cessation from the start of the next agricultural year; such termination falls within the phrase &quot;on the lease ceasing to be in force&quot; under Section 168(4). On that basis, the lease was treated as validly determined and ejectment was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>