srinu
06 December 2010 at 17:26
WE BELONGS TO ST TO BUY A LAND IN1946,1948,TOTAL LAND IS 13 YAKER Document no:921/1961
1.Moulankhan w/o Syed Miyasahab,
2.Sahab Beebe w/o Mahaboob Mair ,dwara Thippanna s/o Sajanna garu nuchi
Link document no, our four grand father 1748/1946,Ramanna s/o Thimmanna
survey no.156 lo 17.67 pina:01.47
survey no.157 lo 24.6 pina :02.01 both total =3.48 yaker
Document no:987/1953
1.Moulankhan w/o Syed Miyasahab,
2.Sahab Beebe w/o Mahaboob Mair ,dwara Thippanna s/o Sajanna garu nuchi
dwara Nagamma w/o late Venktanna mariu sons Chenchanna,Lakhmanna,Venktaswamy nuchi
Link document no:1749/1946, Our four grand father Ramanna s/o Thimmanna
survey no:156 lo 17.67 piki,01.48
survey no:157 lo 24.6 piki ,02.00 both total= 3.48 yaker
Document no: 112/1964 chinna Mahamudddhisha s/o Rojaferi sahab
Mother link 99/29 Ramanna s/o Giddaiah nuchi
our four grand father Ramanna s/o Thimanna
survey no:156 lo 17.67 piki,01.00
survey no:157 lo 24.6 piki,01.00 total 02.00 yaker
THESE R ALL OUR N THE PACE IS Mungalapad village in kurnool dist.
Mother document 1231/62 Pedda Gundanna,Chinna Gundannaramudu s/o Pedda Giddaiah
survey no:156-17.67 lo 0.50
survey no:157-24.06 lo 0.50 both total acar01.00
Govindu s/o Gaganna
Mother document no.144/63, Pedda Giddanna s/o Padda Gaddaiah
survey no:156-17.67 lo 01.00
survey no:157 -2406 lo 01.00 both total 2 yaker
our grand father Govindu s/o Naganna
Document no:6482/1995 k.Sunkalamma w/o Govindu 156 n 157 1 yaker
konadi Ajijasahab n Jamiya GPA .N.RAMMOHAN,Gpa/366-87
THESE R ALL OUR N THE PACE IS Mungalapad village in kurnool dist.
survey no:350,2.yaker 39 cents in kallur mandal,kurnool dist.
8-10 -1962 s Ramanna s/o Thimanna konnavaru(our grand father)
aminavaru Yankanna wife of Yallamma
document no 1283 of 1948 kinnavaru Yankanna wife Yellamma,Sajanna wife Yankamma both 2 persons aminavaru vaddvallapu Venktaswamy son of Chenchanna.
THESE ARE ALL LANDS ARE REGISTERED IN REGISTER OFFICE ,BUT NOW THEY ARE MARKED AS A ROUND,
BECAUSE OF WAKF BOARD .
WE HAVE SOME TAX PAY SLIP OF THAT LAND.
In the erstwhile Hyderabad State, all religious matters including Endowments and Wakf Institutions were being administered and controlled by the Department of Ecclesiastical Affairs known as Umoore-Mazhabi.
The Central Wakf Act 1954 was approved by the Parliament on 31st May,1954 and the said Act was extended to Hyderabad on 15th January,1955and to the whole of A.P. on 1st April,1955. The then Raj Pramukh (Nizam) established a Board to look after exclusively the affairs of Wakf under the name and style of Muslim Wakf Board by notification No:90 dated: 13-1-1955 published in Hyderabad Gazette which became effective from 15th January,1955.
1.wakf id 2.name of wakf 3.mandal 4. village 5.land at 6.T.D.No.7 Sy no 8.extent Ac .cents 9.other properties 10.GAZ.NOand date 11.GAZ SI NO.
KNL/640 Mosque Mungalapad Mungalapad 2161 13 6.88 No18---- 2096
Date 2-5 1956 No.18,������������� dt:2-5-1963 2096 10 640 Kurnool
80 4.68
135 3.96
193/3 0.16
2.39 YAKER. CENTS SURVEY NO 350 KALLUR MANDAL IN KURNOOL,WAKF ID KNL/727,GAZ SI NO.3083,
IN HOUSE PANU CISITHU 2.39 MONEY IS 16 RUPEE 20 PIECE TO THACIDHAR KURNOOL.DATE 8-1-1979
Apwakfboard.ap.nic.in , wakf propertier ,kurnool ,wakf id KNK/640 and another KNL/727
Kishor Makwana
06 December 2010 at 16:07
Respected Sir,
When I was Secretary of a Housing Society at Nerul in 1995, the managing committee had slapped a case u/s 138 against a member who had misappropriated funds and Mr KS Subash, Chairman representing the case for years. When he had developed health complications due to diabetes and related heart ailments, He requested the Society to appoint someone else to take the case forward which was granted by the Society and the same was noted in the Committee minutes of July 2008 and a resolution was passed relieving him of his duties in the subsequent AGM and appointed 4 members to represent the case for Society. Hiding these facts, the Society kept on asking future dates at the Court for more than two years citing reason as he was not available to attend the case. When finally the Court reprimanded the Society, the Secretary thru Advocate lied to the Court that he refuse to attend the case. Recently the Secretary got a resolution passed at the AGM to withdraw the case and another resolution stating that the Managing Committee is not accountable for any of their actions. By not discharging the duties as a Secretary (Secretary for more than 3 years), the Society lost a sizeable amount of money. Is there any provision to recover the amount for dereliction of duty from the Managing Committee and whether we can initiate action for their lying to the Court for more than 2 years? The Committee is passing the blame on us. Please advice.
With warm regards,
Kishor Makwana
Satish Krishnaraj
06 December 2010 at 11:31
Hi,
We are a group of friends wanting to start a CBSE school in Bangalore, India. We have already procured a small piece of land for the same.
My questions are as follows:
1) I would like to understand all the licenses / permissions (from various agencies) that I need obtain to start the school.
2) I am looking for a blueprint for the agreements of various entities (trusts, MOU amongst friends, land regulations, etc.,) concerned and with all the parties involved.
vinod bansal
06 December 2010 at 09:28
R/Members
I am representing to a transporter (Carrier)in a recovery suit filed by insurance co. of goods sender,in this case truck met with an accident while saving a straw cattle,loss was reported to insurance co. of sender as the goods were insured by sender,claim amount has already been paid to sender by his insurance co. but as per agreement and subrogation rights in between sender and his insurance co. .Insurance co. filed a suit for recovery against transporter under Carrier act,as per carrier's act transport is liable to reimburse claim amount to insurance co. but there is also an written agreement in between my client (carrier) and sender,in which it is clearly mentioned that carrier will not be liable for any loss during transportation,but it carrier will be liable to co operate sender and will provide all required documents for settlement of claim with his insurar,i want to know in given facts,carrier act will prevail or written agreement,kindly advice.Thanx
Anonymous
05 December 2010 at 20:08
Dear Experts,
Which is the particular "Act" applicable to Maharashtra State Electricity Distibution
Company Limited?
What is the "Rules and Regulations" for granting Electrity connection as prescribed under the Act?.
In which "provisions of law the Rules and Rules and Regulations" are prescribed for new Electrity Connections to various establishment?
Kindly provide the above information as this is urgently required.
Many thanks in advance.
Ish Arora
05 December 2010 at 13:46
Under delhi Master plan 2021 , Commerical activity existing before 1962 will continue as it is subject to providing documentary proof.
At the same time commerical activity are not allowed in places of worship like Temple premises?
Now the shops existing outside the temple (as part of temple premises) ( site plan was approved in 1924 with shops)and occupants owning shops as tenants wef 1952 onwards. The area is approved as commerical area under Plan.
Will such activities will continue to opearte as it is Pre 1962 structure ?.
Further there are many places of worship in delhi with similiar shops outside affecting public at large
Anonymous
05 December 2010 at 11:03
HI, GOOD MORNING FRIENDS
PLEASE ANY ONE REFER ME THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BENCH AT NAGPUR ON THE VALIDITY OF CASTE ( THE OFFENCE CAN NOT BE REGISTER BY THE CASTE VALIDITY AUTHORITY AGAINST THE PERSON IF IN CASE HE HAS CLAIM THE SAME CASTE AS DISPUTED)
PLEASE CITE ME THE SAME AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE I WL THANKFUL 2 U
tej
04 December 2010 at 20:14
sir,
in the civil suit the suit is decreed in part in favor of plaintiff. respondent preferred the appeal. as the org. plaintiff is contesting the case in person and not conversant and well acquainted with procedure to file cross objections filed cross objections along with delay con donation application.cross objections filed were not in form of memorandum of appeal form. the hon. court has condoned the delay and cross objections are taken on record. mean while the org. plaintiff came to know that the cross objections are required to be filed in the form of memorendum of appeal form and necessary court fee is also required to be affixed otherwise the same will not be considered and on tecchnical grounds the cross objections may be rejected in final judgement. so the org.plaintiff filed pursis along with the same cross objections but only in memorandum of appeal form with detailed calculations of enhanced claim by way of cross objections and also affixed necessary court fee on it. the Hon. Court ordered on Pursis Other side to say if any. the pursis ,the court fee stamp and the cross objections in memorandum of appeal form are given exhibits .the appellant filed his say to the pursis with say that already one set of cross objection is on record hence other set of cross objections cannot be allowed to be filed. the argument on the pursis completed. the org.plaintiff filed written notes of arguments for argument on exhibited pursis saying that he is not conversant with the procedure to file the cross objections and now the cross objections filed in form of memorandum of appeal form are the same which are allowed by the court already and to avoid any lacuna and technical defects he has filed the same in memorandum of appeal form. the Hon. court passed the order and rejected the pursis and the grounds for filing cross objections in memorandum of appeal form saying pursis cannot be allowed
what the org. plaintiff should do now.will not taking the cross objections in memorandum of appeal form will be harmful to cross objections . how the defect if it is at all of not filing the cross objections in memorandum of appeal form without affixing necessary court fee which is now part of record could be cured.
sunil
04 December 2010 at 17:58
sir is there any reported case, regarding ,to what extent grace marks can be awarded in a competitive exams.
sir also is there any reported case saying arbitrarily awarding grace marks to one subject & not awarding to other subjects in a competitive exam(like state PSC) violates Art. 14 & Art. 16(1) of constitution.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
court orders
Dear Members,
Can some of you advise the case number for the following as they are needed to cite in a case of mine
1. M/s.Scooter India Ltd. V/s. Mr.Pradeep Kumar, reported in 1986-2002 NC National consumer Commission
2.SC on Consumer Cases (Part IV) Page 6298
3. Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Shah v/s. Bombay Hospital reported in (1999) 4 SCC Page 325
Regards,
R.Thyagarajan