Mumbai Court May 1918 Judgments
Kandukuri Veera Basavaraju Pantulu Vs. Kandukuri Balasurya Prasada Rao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR238
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff, Bassavaraju, on the 22nd December, 1909, in the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam, in the Madras Presidency, for possession of considerable landed property by virtue of his right as the nearest reversioner by adoption to one Vishwanadha Row, the last male owner. And the question for determination by this Board is whether the adoption under which he claims title is valid under the Hindu law. Vishwanadha died in 1880, and since his death the properties were held by his widow, Mahalakshmamna, for a Hindu widow's estate until her decease in 1908, when the defendants, who are admittedly the grandsons of Vishwanadha's paternal grand-uncle and who, on failure of the adoption alleged by the plaintiff, would be entitled as the nearest reversioners, took possession of the same, and their possession was confirmed by the revenue authorities, before whom the question now in dispute was first litigated.2. The plaintiffs' ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganesh Ghatate Vs. Baliram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR53
Sumner, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, which affirmed an order of the District Judge made in execution proceedings on a foreclosure decree. The point has been very clearly argued, but their Lordships do not think it necessary to take time to consider the matter further.2. The history of the case, which is rather complicated, is set out chronologically and very conveniently in the judgment appealed against. The point for decision is one dependent on the construction of Section 45 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act of 1898, Chapter IV, 'Of Occupancy-Tenants,' and particularly Sub-section 6 of that section.3. The substance of the decision of the Court below was that the Conciliation Award of February 1905 was, for the purposes of this case, a fresh origin of the rights between the parties, and that, although it came into existence in consequence of the mortgages of 1881 and 1884, and transactions there under,...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Rama Rao Vs. Rajah of Pittapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1056
Dunedin, J.1. The plaintiff is the son of an adopted son of the late Rajah of Pittapur, and he sues the defendant, the present Rajah of Pittapur, for maintenance.At the time that the suit was raised the father of the plaintiff was alive, but pending the suit he died. The Raj of Pittapur is an im-partible zemindari, and was devised by will to the defendant, who was described in the will as the aurasa son of the late Rajah born of one of his wives, three years after the adoption of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father contested the right of the defendant to the Raj, and alleged that he was not the legitimate son of the late Rajah. In that suit the Sub-ordinate Judge decided that the defendant was not legitimate and that the Raj was inalienable The judgment was reversed and the case decided in favour of the defendant by the Court of Appeal and by this Board, who, without deciding as to the legitimacy of the defendant, held that in accordance with what had been laid down by this ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Sripat Singh Vs. Lal Basant Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1101
Ameer Ali, J1. The sole question for determination in this appeal relates to the status of the plaintiff-respondent under the Oudh Land Laws, viz,, whether he is an 'under-proprietor' or, as the defendant alleges, a mere lessee. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh to recover possession from the defendant, the talukdar of Rajapur, of the village of Daulatpur, lying within the taluka,on the ground that it was owned by the plaintiff as 'under-proprietor,' and that he had been wrongfully dispossessed therefrom by the defendant in execution of a rent-decree, The defendant denied the plaintiff's title as 'under-proprietor', and alleged that he was only a lessee, and was, therefore' liable under the Rent Law to ejectment for default in the payment of his rent. The Subordinate Judge held in favour of , the plaintiff, and decreed his claim for possession and for mesne profits during the period he has been kept out of possession. And this decree has been affi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›