Mumbai Court August 1919 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Fakrodinsab Mahomed Arifsab Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1166
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is the full owner of the lands in suit and of the khatibgiri right appertaining to them, for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from recovering Rs. 450 annually from him and for a refund of Rs. 750 recovered by the defendants.2. It is alleged that Fakrudin valad Mahomed Kasimsaheb was originally the khatib in Hangal and that as such he held certain lands in Inam. These lands were allowed to remain with him in 1856 by the Inam Commissioner under Act XI of 1852. Under circumstances detailed in the plaint the lands and the Khatibgiri came to be alienated to the plaintiff's father in 1864 by Fakruddin's daughter-in-law Pachhabi. Thereafter the plaintiff claims to have enjoyed the lands free from assessment and performed the services as khatib until the Commissioner (Southern Division) made an order on the 23rd September 1911 directing that the full economic rent be recovered from the present plaintiff and be paid to Mahomed Hani...
Mahmadsaheb Appalal Kaji Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1159
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues for a declaration that the order of the Collector, dated 2nd June 1914, directing that he should pay certain rent on the lands in question or that the lands should be forfeited is illegal and ultra vires.2. The defendant No. 1 (the Secretary of State for India in Council) and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in whose favour the said order was made contended in the trial Court that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts was ousted by Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act ( X of 1876 ) and that the order was justified by the Rules framed by the Government in 1908 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 8 and 10, Bom. Act XI of 1852 and Act VII of 1863, Section 2, Clause (3), regarding the resumption and continuance of service lands.3. The trial Court held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not ousted, that the rules did not justify the order of the Collector, and that he was entitled only to levy the full assessment. It acco...
Chanbasayya Padadaya Vs. Chennapgavda Ramchandragavda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR44
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint land and Rs. 900 as mesne profits for three years before suit from the defendants. The suit was filed in the Court of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar. The defendant sought to prove by parole evidence that the sale-deed which he had admitted having executed should be construed as a mortgage. This was a defence which he could set up if he was an agriculturist at the time of the transaction which was in 1903.2. It is argued that the defendant could prove he was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act because the Act had been extended to the District of Dharwar before the execution of the sale-deed. When the Act was passed, Sections 1, 11, 56, 60 and 62 only were extended to the whole of British India. The rest of the Act extended only to the Districts of Poona, Satara, Sholapur and Ahmednagar, but might, from time to time, be extended wholly or in part by th...
Fakarudinsab and Two ors., Sons and Heirs of the Deceased Mahomed Arif ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom130
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is the full owner of the lands in suit and of the khatib-giri right appertaining to them, for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from recovering Rs. 450 annually from him and for a refund of Rs. 750. recovered by the defendants.2. It is alleged that Fakarudin walad Mahomed Kusim-saheb was originally the khatib in Bangui and that as such he held certain lands in Inam. These lands were allowed to remain with him in 1856 by the Inam Commissioner under Act. XI of 1852. Under circumstances detailed in the plaint the lands and the Khatib-gtri came to be alienated to the plaintiff's father in 1864 by Fakarudin's widow Pachhabi. Thereafter the plaintiff claims to have enjoyed the lands free from assessment and performed the services as khatib until the Commissioner (Southern Division) made an order on the 23rd September 1911 directing that the full economic rent be recovered from the present plaintiff and be paid to Mahomed Hanif (d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›