Skip to content


Muhammad Taki Vs. Shandar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.212
AppellantMuhammad Taki
RespondentShandar and anr.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - wajib-ul-arz--construction--groves planted by tenant--right to cut and sell timber. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and.....1. having regard to the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which governs the relations of the zamindar and the tenants, we are of opinion that the view expressed by the learned additional judge in his judgment is correct. the wajib-ul-arz recites that the groves planted by cultivators are noted in a list of groves, and that those owners have a right to out the timber in any way they please. it is proved that the timber in question was planted by the predecessor-in-title of the defendants and the defendants entered as occupancy tenants in the column of tenants and also as owners of the trees. in view of the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which we think has been correctly interpreted by the court below, we dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this court on the higher scale.
Judgment:

1. Having regard to the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which governs the relations of the zamindar and the tenants, we are of opinion that the view expressed by the learned Additional Judge in his judgment is correct. The wajib-ul-arz recites that the groves planted by cultivators are noted in a list of groves, and that those owners have a right to out the timber in any way they please. It is proved that the timber in question was planted by the predecessor-in-title of the defendants and the defendants entered as occupancy tenants in the column of tenants and also as owners of the trees. In view of the language of the wajib-ul-arz, which we think has been correctly interpreted by the Court below, we dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //