Mumbai Court June 1920 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.
Seth Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. the Assistant Collector of Prantij Prant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.584
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act from the award made by the District Judge of Ahmedabad, to whom a reference was made at the instance of the claimant, who is the appellant before us.2. The property with which we are concern ed is bungalow No. 33 with the compound and outhouses which formed part of the Andheri Bagh. The property in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and a declaration under Section 6 was made on the 29th of April 1913. Under that declaration three bungalows Nos. 33, 34 and 35 with the lands appurtenant to these bungalows and outhouses were acquired. It was declared that for residences of Government Officers in the Ahmedabad Cantonment, the superstructures on the land specified together with all such rights, if any, over the sides thereof were required Within the limits of the Ahmedabad Cantonment. The total area of the land with reference to the bungalow No. 33 is stated in the declaration to be 36,137 square yards, 7 square f...
Mirza Yadalli Beg Vs. Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1315
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The relevant facts in this case can be briefly stated. In 1895 the owner of sixteen field in Berar mortgaged them to the appellant. In 1896 the mortgagor conveyed one of these fields to the respondents. In 1899 the appellant brought a suit against the original mortgagor alone to enforce the mortgage, and obtained a decree by consent. Under this decree (which was afterwards made absolute) in default of payment within a definite time nine of the mortgaged field, including that conveyed to the respondents were to be foreclosed and to be banded over in possession to the appellant. The respondents not having been made parties to the suit were not affected by it. The appellant, went into possession. He kept no accounts. The officiating Judicial Commissioner in the Central Provinces, Berar Jurisdiction, has decided that the respondents as owners of an interest in the equity of redemption as it originally stood, an interest which although only fractional remains undistur...
Madhavrao Moreshwar Bhadanekar Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom125; (1920)22BOMLR1176
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this suit against the Secretary of State to recover his two per cent. Sardeshmukhi Haq in certain villages in Deogad Taluka not on the old Jamabandi but on the survey assessment. The suit was dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that the suit came within Section 4 of the Pensions Act, and that as the plaintiff' had not produced a certificate as provided for by Section 6, he could not proceed any further in the suit.2. The only ground which has been argued in appeal is that the Pensions Act, so far as it deals with pensions and grants of land revenue in Ratnagiri, is ultra vires. The appellant relies on the decision in Secretary of State for India v. Moment (1912) 10 I.A 48. The question, therefore, arises whether a suit would have lain against the East India Company to recover on a grant of land revenue in Ratnagiri; if such a suit would have lain, then it would also lie against the Secretary of State, and any provision to the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›