Difference between revisions of "HPB-SB-5-53"
(Created page with "{{HPB-SB-header | volume = 5 | page = 53 | image = SB-05-053.jpg | notes = }} {{HPB-SB-item | volume =5 | page =53 | item =1 | type = article | status = wanted | co...") |
m |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | {{Page|189|Transaction Collection.}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| − | | status = | + | | status = ok |
| − | | continues = | + | | continues = 54, 55, 56 |
| author = | | author = | ||
| − | | title = | + | | title = Transaction Collection |
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled =yes | | untitled =yes | ||
| − | | source title = | + | | source title = |
| − | | source details = | + | | source details = p. 189 |
| publication date = | | publication date = | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| − | | notes = | + | | notes = Transaction from High Court in Marathi |
| − | | categories = | + | | language = Marathi |
| + | | translator = Omprakash Chillal | ||
| + | | categories = | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Style P-No indent|A lawsuit for the claim for which land was claimed was awarded judgment (by Lower Court). On that (Judgment) appeal was recorded in the High Court.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Decree of the High Court:''' It is now clear that the disputants were also together with the respondents in applying to the Civil Authority for dividing of estate held in common. Some of the land had been cultivated by the disputants on lease from the respondents and rest of the land was purchased by them from the land owner. The collector has allocated the division of the estate. Hence this Court has no authority to change the same. We are of the opinion that the say of the sub judge as to the disputants having justness of the claim on the land in the lawsuit is not based on the law. Because if it is supposed that the estate is not in common and some portion of it was held with separately by some of the kinsmen, then also the Collector would not have distributed the estate if he had been sure and satisfied that the assessment of government levy on the same was just. The land in dispute was held together as has been applied by the applicants and was distributed on admonition by the Collector, and as the Collector had distributed (the estate) so the distribution was not done earlier is proved. The Privy Council has decided in the lawsuit Vaijanathlal v/s Ramadin Choudhari* that one of the common owners, the other {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|5-54}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{Footnotes start}} | ||
| + | <nowiki>*</nowiki> Advocate’s Report, no.21, page 233 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Supplement, Native Opinion dated 14th December 1879 AD. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This book is registered as per Act 20 of 1847 AD. | ||
| + | {{Footnotes end}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | = Inlay = | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:SB-05-053.1.jpg|200px|thumb|right]] | ||
| + | [[File:SB-05-053.2.jpg|200px|thumb|right]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued| The Spiritual Body |5-52}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| + | | volume = 5 | ||
| + | | page = 53 | ||
| + | | item = 2 | ||
| + | | type = news | ||
| + | | status = wanted | ||
| + | | continues = | ||
| + | | author = | ||
| + | | author signed = | ||
| + | | title = Mr. J. J. Morse has left London | ||
| + | | subtitle = | ||
| + | | untitled = yes | ||
| + | | source title = | ||
| + | | source details = | ||
| + | | publication date = | ||
| + | | original date = | ||
| + | | notes = Five short news | ||
| + | | archivist notes = | ||
| + | | categories = | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| + | | volume = 5 | ||
| + | | page = 53 | ||
| + | | item = 3 | ||
| + | | type = article | ||
| + | | status = wanted | ||
| + | | continues = | ||
| + | | author = | ||
| + | | author signed = | ||
| + | | title = A Good Test Seance Relating to Materialised Spirit Drapery | ||
| + | | subtitle = | ||
| + | | untitled = | ||
| + | | source title = | ||
| + | | source details = | ||
| + | | publication date = | ||
| + | | original date = | ||
| + | | notes = Without ending | ||
| + | | archivist notes = | ||
| + | | categories = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | ... | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:13, 2 May 2023
| 189 | 189 |
<Untitled> (Transaction Collection)
A lawsuit for the claim for which land was claimed was awarded judgment (by Lower Court). On that (Judgment) appeal was recorded in the High Court.
Decree of the High Court: It is now clear that the disputants were also together with the respondents in applying to the Civil Authority for dividing of estate held in common. Some of the land had been cultivated by the disputants on lease from the respondents and rest of the land was purchased by them from the land owner. The collector has allocated the division of the estate. Hence this Court has no authority to change the same. We are of the opinion that the say of the sub judge as to the disputants having justness of the claim on the land in the lawsuit is not based on the law. Because if it is supposed that the estate is not in common and some portion of it was held with separately by some of the kinsmen, then also the Collector would not have distributed the estate if he had been sure and satisfied that the assessment of government levy on the same was just. The land in dispute was held together as has been applied by the applicants and was distributed on admonition by the Collector, and as the Collector had distributed (the estate) so the distribution was not done earlier is proved. The Privy Council has decided in the lawsuit Vaijanathlal v/s Ramadin Choudhari* that one of the common owners, the other <... continues on page 5-54 >
* Advocate’s Report, no.21, page 233
Supplement, Native Opinion dated 14th December 1879 AD.
This book is registered as per Act 20 of 1847 AD.
Inlay
< The Spiritual Body (continued from page 5-52) >
...
<Untitled> (Mr. J. J. Morse has left London)
...
A Good Test Seance Relating to Materialised Spirit Drapery
...
Editor's notes
- ↑ Transaction Collection by unknown author, p. 189. Translated from Marathi by Omprakash Chillal. Transaction from High Court in Marathi
- ↑ Mr. J. J. Morse has left London by unknown author. Five short news
- ↑ A Good Test Seance Relating to Materialised Spirit Drapery by unknown author. Without ending