Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Land law

TUKURAM MARUTI CHAVAN versus MARUTI NARAYAN CHAVAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.

The appellant's failure to serve mandatory written notice under Section 32F to the landlord—despite knowing the identity of the rightful owner—resulted in loss of tenant's statutory right to purchase the land; initiation of Section 32G proceedings and payments were not sufficient compliance.

Source excerpt

  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Notice requirement under bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act
  • Widow landlords' rights
Read case analysis
Rent control

PALANI AMMAL versus VISWANATHA CHETTIAR (DEAD) AND ORS.

Denial of landlord's title by the appellant amounted to forfeiture of tenancy, rendering her outside the protection of Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921; statutory protections under Sections 3, 9, 11 could not be invoked where landlord-tenant relationship is denied.

Source excerpt

  • Statutory tenancy
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Denial of landlord's title
  • Forfeiture of tenancy
  • Compensation for structures
  • Definition of 'building'
Read case analysis
Property law

ANNA BHAU MAGDUM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES versus BABASAHEB ANANDRA DESAI

In circumstances where the landlord was a minor on the tillers' day (April 1, 1957), the provisions of Section 32-F apply, requiring the tenant to exercise his right of purchase within the stipulated period by sending intimation to the landlord and Tribunal. Non-compliance with Section 32-F(1A) is a mandatory forfeiture, and the tenant becomes liable for summary eviction under Section 32-P(1).

Source excerpt

  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Landlord's status as minor
  • Mandatory procedure under tenancy statutes
Read case analysis
Agricultural land law

DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL versus DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANR.

The High Court correctly held that land allotted to respondent's brother should be excluded and land held by minor son even if included leaves respondent within the ceiling limit; respondent entitled to purchase land under sections 32B and 32G of the Act.

Source excerpt

  • Ceiling limits
  • Land partition
  • Joint family property
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Record of rights as evidence
Read case analysis
Land law

MUGAJI LAXMAN PADULE THROUGH HIS HEIRS versus TRIMBAK WASUDEO KULKARNI & ORS.

A person who is already possessed of land exceeding the statutory ceiling area cannot legally purchase further land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, regardless of subsequent partition or inheritance; the sale dated 3.6.1960 was, therefore, illegal and inoperative.

Source excerpt

  • Ceiling on land holdings
  • Validity of transfer
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Application of bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act
Read case analysis
Property law

THE NEW THEATERS (CARNATIC TALKIES) LTD., COIMBATORE versus N. VAJRAPANI NAIDU

The amended provisions of Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, apply to suits and proceedings pending at the time when the amendments came into force. Orders made under the original section, if not fully executed, are superseded by the amended scheme. Relief under the amended section can be sought in courts below even after disposal of an appeal before the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court only addressed validity and not operation of the amended provisions.

Source excerpt

  • Lease extension
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Retrospective application of statutes
  • Ejectment proceedings
Read case analysis
Land law

BHAJAN LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

A tenant who has applied to purchase under section 18 before an ejectment order is passed retains the statutory right to purchase, which is not defeated by a subsequent ejectment order. He is entitled to purchase upon payment of compensation together with arrears of rent.

Source excerpt

  • Ejectment
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Non-payment of rent
  • Statutory tenancy
Read case analysis
Land law

GURBAX SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

The area 'selected' by the landowner under s. 5-B is to be treated as 'reserved area' under the Act, and accordingly, the tenant does not have the right to purchase such land under s. 18. The reservation requires compliance with the prescribed procedure, and in this case, there was no evidence that the Patwari had verified the reservation as required; therefore, selection under s. 5-B is valid and excludes the tenant's purchase right.

Source excerpt

  • Punjab security of land tenures act
  • Tenant's right to purchase
  • Reservation and selection of land
  • Eviction of tenants under land tenure laws
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.