Mumbai Court February 2001 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.
Mahibubi Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Sayed Abdul Majid and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR104; 2001(3)BomCR33; (2001)2BOMLR530; 2001(2)MhLj512
ORDERA. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J. D., Pune dated 24.11.1992 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1447 of 1989.2. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D., Pune being Regular Civil Suit No. 1447 of 1989, inter alia. praying for a declaration that the suit property is owned by Yasin Zuk Darga and Kabrastan and is not a private property of the petitioners herein.3. It is not necessary to refer to all the events mentioned in the said suit, for the same are not relevant for the adjudication of the present case. The relevant facts for deciding this petition are that the matter went right upto the Apex Court against the interlocutory order where the Apex Court by order dated 30.7.1991 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3027 and 3028 of 1991 directed the Trial Court to deal with the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary Issue, if warranted by the pleadings, and dispose of the matter as urgently...
Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal Deceased by L.Rs. Vs. Shri Shankar Maruti D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR128; AIR2001Bom384
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs whose suit for possession of the suit land from the respondent No. 1 has been dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Satara on the ground that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in view of the bar contained in Section 36-A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Earlier, the trial Court had decreed the suit.2, The facts in brief are as follows :Consolidation proceedings were initiated in village Sonake, Taluka Koregaon under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Two blocks known as Gats were formed by consolidating the lands of the appellants viz. Shankar, the respondent No. 2 Sarjerao Laxman Dhumal and some other persons. It is an admitted position that the two blocks bearing Gat No. 1428 and 1429 were formed as follows : (A) Block No. 1428 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›