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 : AIR1982SC887; 1982(1)SCALE418; (1982)2SCC79; [1982]3SCR341; 1982(14)LC784(SC)
1. These nine consolidated appeals on certificate are directed from a common judgment and decree of the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore dated June 22, 1962 which affirmed, subject to a modification, the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, dated July 5, 1956, substantially dismissing the plaintiff's claim for declaration of title to, and possession of certain watan properties and decreeing instead his alternative claim for partition and separate possession of his one-sixth share therein.2. The principal question in controversy in these appeals is whether Sections and 4 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act, 1950 (for short 'Act No. 60 of 1950') and Sections and 7 of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 (for short 'Act No. 22 of 1955'), which provided for abolition of watans and alienations in the merged territories, resumption of watan land and its re-grant, to the holder for the time being, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC589; (1961)63BOMLR521; [1961]2SCR163
Imam, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1953, reversing the decision of Shah, J. and restoring the order passed by the executing court which had been set aside by him. 2. Two questions arise for decision in this appeal (1) whether the Wada (house) ordered to be attached by the executing court is Watan property, and if so, can it be attached in execution of a decree (2) If the Wada is not Watan property, is it exempted from attachment by virtue of the provisions of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure 3. It is necessary now to state a few facts. One Rao B. Vithalrao Laxmanrao Thube, hereinafter referred to as Laxmanrao, brought Civil Suit No. 313 of 1943 against Tuljaramarao Narainrao Desai, hereinafter referred to as Tuljaramarao, to recover Rs. 80,000 which had been borrowed by him from the plaintiff. Laxmanrao's suit was decreed on December 20, 1943. Tuljaramarao having died his legal repre...
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 : 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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC818; 2010(1)BomCR366; JT2009(13)SC338; (2009)8MLJ871(SC); (2009)10SCC273; 2009(10)LC4896(SC):2009AIRSCW7329:2009(6)LHSC3651
H.L. Dattu, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3667 of 1985 and Second Appeal No. 87 of 1986 dated 01.7.1999, where by and where under the writ petition and the second appeal filed by the respondents herein are allowed and the order passed by Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. A/WIN/SR/9/80 dated 6.4.1985 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1979 dated 10.2.1984 and confirmed in Appeal No. 535 of 1984 dated 18.6.1985 are set aside.2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, the facts in extenso requires to be noticed and they are:The suit land was of the category of Mahar Watanlands situated in village Pimpre Khurd, Purandhar Taluk, District Pune. The suit lands originally belonged to Ramabai, wife of Pandu Sonawane and Radhabai wife of Sawale Sonavane. Both of them did not have any issues. The appellants had claimed that their forefa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant235; AIR1962Mys235
Das Gupta, C.J.(1) The facts leading upto this appeal may be shortly stated as follows:(2) The plaintiff and his ancestors have been sub-inamdars under the defendant and his ancestors from a long time. In the year 1922 the defendant filed a watan case being case No. 15/22-23 before the Collector of Mohole for recovery of possession under section 11 of the Watan Act. On 14-4-27 order for possession was made by the Collector and possession of the lands in question was made over to the defendant by the Collector. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of the Commissioner. That appeal was not disposed of until the year 1946. On 8-10-46 the decision of the Collector was reversed and an order for restoration of possession wax made in favour of the plaintiff. In 1947 the plaintiff obtained possession of the suit lands. Thereafter the defendant filed a petition for revision to the Resident of Kolhapur and obtained a stay order. But the said revision petition was ultimately dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR350; 2009(111)BomLR473; 2009(2)MhLj220
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The land involved in the present dispute is survey No. 38/3 which admeasures about one acre and 5 gunthas in village Malshiras, District Solapur. Kondi Bapur Mahar, the father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was the landlord of the aforesaid suit land. He sold the land to Respondent No. 4 who in turn sold it to the petitioner. The father of Respondent No. 1 was a tenant on that land from 1951-1952 to 1955-1956. The possession of the land was handed over to the landlord in 1956, according to the petitioner. Thereafter the landlord continued cultivating the land, personally. In 1970-71, the Additional Tehsildar, Malshiras initiated an enquiry Under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (for short, 'BT&AL; Act') suo moto. The tenant's statement was recorded and according to the petitioner, he had expressed his inability to purchase the land. A copy of this statement has been annexed to the petition. The statement of the landlord was also recorded by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2153; 1986(1)SCALE644; (1986)3SCC507; [1986]2SCR1; 1986(2)LC353(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The Appellant was the holder of large plots of land. By his order dated March 21, 1964, the Collector, Kaira District, directed that plots of land admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas were to be considered as Service Inam land class vi(a) assigned for remuneration in respect of Patel's service of village Malarpura, Taluka Matar, and the remaining plots of lands were to be resumed and entered in the name of the Government of Gujarat under Rule 4 of the Resumption Rules, 1908, and steps for their disposal should be taken separately by the competent authority. He further ordered that the lands which were held to be Service Inam lands should be dealt with under the Gujarat Patel Watans Abolition Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. XLVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act'), with effect from April 1, 1963. Against the said order of the Collector, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue, Ahmedabad Division, but as the office of the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!