Mumbai Court January 1922 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.
Balvant Raghunath Vs. Bala Valad Malu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom833
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of the suit land from the first three defendants, or, in the alternative, to recover Rs. 417-9-0 from the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant had obtained a mortgage decree on the 15th August 1913 in Suit No. (696 of 1910 against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, Sakharam and Tukaram. In the execution of that decree, the suit land was sold by auction on the 3rd March 1917. The plaintiff purchased it for Rs. 401, and his sale was confirmed on the 23rd May 1917. He says that he got possession of the land unobstructed, but the defendants allege that only symbolical possession was obtained and the plaintiff was never in actual possession or Vahivat of the land. On the 28th August 1917, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 asserted their right to be in possession of the land, whereupon the plaintiff filed Suit No. 28 of 1917 in the Mamlatdar's Court which he lost. So he had to bring this suit.2. In the trial Court it was found that defenda...
Vishnu Moreshwar Dabholkar Vs. Gangadhar Ganesh Dabholkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR302
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. First Appeal No. 246 of 1918 was an appeal against the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar in Suit No. 741 of 1916. The parties were the same as the parties in the present second appeal No. 290 of 1921 which is now before us. Suit Mo. 741 of 1916 was a suit by the plaintiffs against the present defendants to recover possession of their four annas share in the Jahagir village of Khedle, and I expressed a hope when I gave judgment that it was the last of a series of suits between the parties. I was not aware at that time that still yet another suit was pending being Suit No. 548 of 1919 from which the present appeal arises.2. The plaintiffs in this suit, after judgment was given by the High Court on the 3rd February 1911 in S.A. 899 of 1908 declaring the shares of the parties of the Jahagir village, filed Suit No. 2 of 1912 claiming their share of the profits for the three years 1905-06, 1906-07 and 1907-08. They obtained a decree for Rs. 61...
Jayant Bapsha Savant Vs. Abdul Rahiman Mahomed Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR358
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that he was a co-sharer Khot of the suit-village of Bhandivli; that he managed the suit village in the years 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17 and 1917-18; that a Khoti Khata stood in the defendant's name; and that the defendant did not pay Dhara and Faida for those lands. The defendant inter alia contended that for some lands in suit he was liable to pay only Dhara and local cess; and the main issue in the suit was whether for those lands he was liable to pay the Faida.2. In the trial Court the learned Judge points out that a Khot in respect of his Khasgi lands is a tenant to himself so far as his liability to the body of Khots is concerned. With regard to Khasgi lands, I understand, the position is that the holder is still liable to pay Faida to the general body of the Khots, and that this payment of Faida for various Khasgi lands held by various co-sharers in the ordinary course would be adjusted when the division of profits is made among the joi...
Tiruneelakantam Servai and Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom177
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This is a claim by the Raja of Ramnad against the farmers or tenants of villages in that zamindari to recover from them the money value of certain annual payments received by them from the ryots of those villages. In 1894 two cowles were executed by the then Raja in favour of those farmers. Before the cowles the Raja or Zamindar received 48 per cent of the total produce, the ryots or actual cultivators of the land keeping the other 52 per cent. Of that 48 per cent one-fourth or 12 per cent of total was received by the Raja for certain purposes---3 per cent for charities and 9 per cent for the payment of village officers whom the Raja was liable to pay. By the cowles, the Raja let for a term of years all his interest in the villages to the farmers. The villages are defined by boundaries and most of the land in them was in the occupation of ryots, but there were offices, buildings, tanks, trees and possibly waste land and jungle, which were in the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›