Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(3)BomCR53
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner-tenant in the present matter has come up before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 1983 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in Revision Application No. Ten.A. 22G of 1982 arising out of the judgment and order dated 31-8-1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon in Division Jalgaon in Tenancy Appeal No. 3/1981 which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and order dated 12-1-1981 passed by Tahsildar, Chalisgaon in Tenancy Case No. 2/73 which was initiated on the basis of an application under section 25(2) and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Field Survey No. 73 admeasuring 21 acres and 17 gunthas assessed to Rs. 74.69 situated at Ozar village, Tq. Chalisgaon is the subject-matter of the present petition. The undisputed fact is that the present respondent-landlord was holding this land as Patil Inam land on which the petitioner was a tenant. It is also not disputed that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR504; 2006(6)BomCR6; 2007(1)MhLj819
Lodha R.M., J.1. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur has made the Civil Reference to this Court under Section 13 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (for short, the Act of 1876'). He has expressed his doubt whether he is precluded by the Act of 1876 from taking cognizance of the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from collecting or recovering the non-agricultural charges from the plaintiff for the years 1968 to 1989, as claimed by the defendants in their Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990.2. Gopinath filed the suit against the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Dist. Latur and the Tahsildar, Latur in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, praying for perpetual injunction against the defendants from collecting or recovering non-agricultural charges for the years 1968 to 1989 from the plaintiff, as claimed in the Notices dated 13th March, 1990 and 23rd March, 1990 and restraining them from increasing or enhancing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC895; JT1995(1)SC370; 1995(1)SCALE100; (1995)2SCC543; [1995]1SCR88; 1995(1)LC488(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This batch of appeals raise common question of law, though the High Court of Bombay had decided several appeals by separate judgments. On this account they have been tagged together and were referred to three-Judge Bench. We propose to dispose them of by common judgment. The facts in Civil Appeal No.32/80 are sufficient to decide the question of law. One Bapu Anna Patil (for short B.A. Patil), father of Anna Saheb, the first appellant/1st plaintiff and Balwant alias Balasaheb, the first defendant, deceased 1st respondent in Special Civil Suit No. 79/67 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kolhapur, died on October 31, 1956. Balwant was the eldest male member in the joint family consisting of himself and Anna Saheb. Their sister is Laxmibai, 4th defendant. It is now an admitted fact that all other properties, except two items of the agricultural lands bearing R.S. Nos. 359 and 172/8 situated in the village Rukadi of a total extent of 15 acres and 20 gunth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom314; (1949)51BOMLR556
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and for possession of his half share in the properties in suit. The plaintiff's ease was that these properties were joint family properties, and the joint family consisted of his father Narayanrao, his elder brother Balasaheb and himself. Narayanrao died in 1927, Balasaheb died on January 5, 1934, and according to the plaintiff he became the karta of the family on the death of Balasaheb. Balasaheb left two sons, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, there were disputes between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and hence he filed a suit for partition. He also in this suit challenged various alienations made by his father Narayanrao and brought the alienees on the record of the suit. The defence of defendant No. 1 was that the properties in suit were watan properties, they were impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture, and therefore on the death of Narayanrao, Balasaheb woul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1978Bom4
Apte, J.1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff whose suit for declaration that a certain order passed by the Government was illegal and void and for certain other reliefs has been dismissed by the trial Court on preliminary grounds that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 4 of the Revenue Jurisdiction Act and .the suit was also barred by res judicata in view of the decision of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1426 of 1962, D/- 8-12-1964 (Bom).2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may now be summarised.3. The suit property consists of 13 different pieces of agricultural land situate at Mamurabad in the District and Taluka Jalgaon. These lands altogether measure 18 acres 15 gunthas. One of these 13 lands bears Survey No. 491. It is not necessary to give the numbers of the other twelve lands.4. It is common ground that these 13 lands were formerly held as 'Gao Hal' (inam land). Accordingly, the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC436; (1964)66BOMLR129; [1964]1SCR200
Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the decree of the District Judge, Thana, setting aside the decree in favour of the Plaintiff-appellant. 2. The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute are these : The plaintiff's family are grantees of the Patilki Watan of some villages in Umbergaon taluka of the Thana District of Maharashtra, including the villages of Solsumbha, Maroli and Vavji. Defendants 2 to 4 also belong to the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff represents the seniormost branch of the family while the defendants 2 to 4 represent other branches. The dispute with which we are concerned in this appeals relates to the Patilki of Solsumbha. Under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (III of 1874) the person who actually performs the duty of a hereditary Office for the time being is called an Officiator. It is common ground that the Officiator had been selected from the branch of the plaintiff from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR89
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Both the petition and the second appeal were filed by the one and the same person, namely, Vithu Hira Mahar. It appears that he died during the pendency of this petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record.2. In writ petition petitioner Vithu challenged the Order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6-4-1985 as per Exhibit 'K' to the petition and in the second appeal appellant Vithu had challenged the Order of the District Judge, Pune, (P.V. Kakadae) dated 18-6-1985 in appeal filed by him. This appeal before the Additional District Judge was filed by Vithu against the order of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1979 by which the trial Court had decreed the suit of the respondents - plaintiffs.3. Though the writ petition and the second appeal are arising out of different orders, common questions of fact and law are involved in both of them and hence they were tagged together and were heard together.4. There is a chequered history to the liti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR770; 1998(1)BomCR639
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The respondents were owners of the land S. No. 2/5 admeasuring 5 acres 12 gunthas situate at village Khamgaon, being Mahar Watan land of Inam Class VI-B under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'Watans Abolition Act'. The Inam under dispute came to be abolished and resumed by the Slate with a effect from the appointed day viz. 1st August, 1958. The said lands were liable to be regranted to the authorised holder unless the same were found liable to be regranted to the authorised holder under section 6 or unauthorised holder under section 9 of the Watans Abolition Act, The said land came to be regranted to the respondents under the Watans Abolition Act on 25th May, 1963. On 10th October, 1972 the respondents entered into an agreement to sell the lands to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 22,000/-. A sum of Rs. 11,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 22,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the respondents under a receipt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR1142; 2003(3)BomCR18; 2003(2)MhLj381
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner, who is a tenant of agricultural lands, challenges the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 1-1-1987 by which that Tribunal has confirmed the order of the two Courts below. In effect, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the orders by which the purchase of the land in question by the petitioner-tenant has been declared ineffective and the land has been directed to be disposed of under the provisions of Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Tenancy Act'). 2. The petitioners are heirs of the original tenant and the respondent wasthe landlord. The land in question is survey No. 30, situate at village Karkamb inPandharpur taluka. 3. The land in question is an inam land governed by the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Watans Abolition Act'). The respondent is a Watandar. On 5-2-1969, proceedings for purchase of the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR261; (1989)91BOMLR186
Sujata Manohar, J.The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the respondents in respect of Survey No. 227 admeasuring 21 acres and 22 gunthas situated at village Mandwad, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik and assessed at Rs. 5.50. According to the petitioner he is cultivating this land as a tenant of the respondents for more than 45 years.2. In 1957 the 1st respondent Shaikh Bashir Shaikh Pathan filed a suit against the petitioner under section 29 read with section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tenancy Court, being Tenancy Suit No. 121 of 1957, for possession on the ground that he required the lands bona fide for personal cultivation. The Tenancy Mahalkari, Nandgaon by his order dated 29-10-1958 held that tenancy of the petitioner to the extent of 1/4th part of the said survey number should be terminated and possession of this 1/4th portion amounting to 5 acres and 15 gunthas should be handed over to the applicant landlord. The petitioner preferred an ...
Tag this Judgment!