Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom236
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The sole question on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's right to recover possession of the plaint lands is barred by limitation.2. The allegations in the plaint are that the village, of which the lands are a part, was granted in inam for maintaining a sadavart to a gosavi's math: that it is to be enjoyed by a guru of the math during his lifetime and on his death passes to his appointed disciple, who becomes the guru of the math: that the village has been divided between the two Inamdara, of whom Shankargiri, the guru of the plaintiff, enjoyed one-half: that Shankargiri appointed the plaintiff as his disciple and died on the 24th August, 1897, and that the plaintiff thereupon, as the appointed disciple, became owner of the one-half of the village which included the plaint land: and that Shankargiri had no right to make any transfer binding on the plaintiff.3. The defence is that the lands were enjoyed by Shankargiri as his private property: that it was sold by h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom1
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. From the dates on which the several instalments were paid it, appears that, though certain of them were paid after the date of which they were properly due, at no time up to 1895 did any single instalment remain unpaid at the date when that immediately succeeding it accrued due. This might serve to distinguish the present case from the decision in Dulsook v. Chugon Narrun (1877) 2 Bom. 356; bat I desire to place my decision on broader grounds, believing that thereby a solution of the difficulty attending instalment decrees will be furnished, which will be more easily apprehended by the mofussil Courts, than if I limited myself to the refinement which the distinction above referred to would involve.2. Though the decree is equivocal on the point, I will assume, as most in the defendant's favour that on two successive defaults the instalments thenceforth ceased, and the plaintiff was relegated to his right to recover the balance of the decretal sum by taking possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1904)ILR27Bom46
Batty, J.1. The appellant in this case objects that the award (Exhibit 49), limiting the liability of defendant to one-eighth of the produce for khoti-nisbat land in Wanzole, was subject to the condition precedent that partition should be first elected. The respondent contends that this objection was not raised in the lower Courts and cannot be taken now. The judgment, however, of the Court of first instance, adapted by the lower Appellate Court, does not treat the award as concluding the parties, but after observing that it does not help the defendant at all, refers to it only as evidence corroborative of the defendant's statement as to the customary rate of that in respect of khoti-nisbat lands which the judgment states was left undetermined by the Settlement Officer in respect of the land in question. But the lower Court has found that, with regard to occupancy tenancies, the Settlement Officer has determined the share of that to be one-third for all khatedars, other than certain sp...
Tag this Judgment!