Text Practice Mode
shivani shorthand typing center jiwaji ganj morena (M.P.) Mob. No. 8871426000
created Oct 19th 2021, 05:09 by Shivani shorthand
2
395 words
25 completed
5
Rating visible after 3 or more votes
00:00
The offending sale was made vide registered sale deed dated
01/03/1994. The lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year
1966-67 after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and after his death, the name of his
heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry
No.40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on
10/01/1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner.
The bar or prohibition as contained under sub-section 7(b) of
section 165 of the Code is with reference to the date of transfer and
not the date of grant of patta Since the ownership of land covered under the Code vests in the State Government, the revenue authorities under the Code have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters enlisted in section 257 of the Code and cancellation or omitting the entry with due notice to the other side upon acquisition of knowledge of void transaction; in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code. A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. A declaration in that behalf is not required by a Court of law; whereas in contrast, a transaction which otherwise is good act in the eyes of law, unless; avoided is a voidable act, if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated and a party who alleges so is obliged to prove it; seeking a declaration in that behalf in a Court of law. In other words, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be
void but would obviously be voidable.Section 257(1)(f) of the Code cannot be construed providing for substitution of name in revenue record arising out of inter se competitive claims of two parties over a entry / claim viz., instead it applies to cancellation / omission of entry upon acquisition of knowledge of the offending sale in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code.Section 111 of the Code provides jurisdiction of the civil Court.
decide the dispute inter se between two parties relating to right of
records, where the State Government is not a party. Correction of
record due to void transaction is not competitive claim of two rival
parties.
01/03/1994. The lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year
1966-67 after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and after his death, the name of his
heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry
No.40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on
10/01/1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner.
The bar or prohibition as contained under sub-section 7(b) of
section 165 of the Code is with reference to the date of transfer and
not the date of grant of patta Since the ownership of land covered under the Code vests in the State Government, the revenue authorities under the Code have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters enlisted in section 257 of the Code and cancellation or omitting the entry with due notice to the other side upon acquisition of knowledge of void transaction; in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code. A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. A declaration in that behalf is not required by a Court of law; whereas in contrast, a transaction which otherwise is good act in the eyes of law, unless; avoided is a voidable act, if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated and a party who alleges so is obliged to prove it; seeking a declaration in that behalf in a Court of law. In other words, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be
void but would obviously be voidable.Section 257(1)(f) of the Code cannot be construed providing for substitution of name in revenue record arising out of inter se competitive claims of two parties over a entry / claim viz., instead it applies to cancellation / omission of entry upon acquisition of knowledge of the offending sale in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code.Section 111 of the Code provides jurisdiction of the civil Court.
decide the dispute inter se between two parties relating to right of
records, where the State Government is not a party. Correction of
record due to void transaction is not competitive claim of two rival
parties.
saving score / loading statistics ...