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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(9)SC64; 2006(10)SCALE21; (2006)11SCC161
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The ancestors of Appellant were seized and possessed of watan lands. They were known as Watandars and the land was classified in the record of rights as 'Patil Inam Land of Class VIB'. The ancestor of Respondent was inducted as a tenant in Survey Nos. 208/1 and 208/2 of Village Yaval in the District of Jalgaon, State of Maharashtra.3. The erstwhile State of Bombay enacted the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act'). The Tenancy Act was enacted to amend the law relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to make certain other provisions in regard thereto. By reason of the said provisions having regard to the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring full and efficient use of land for agriculture, it was considered expedient to assume management of estates held by landholders and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands, dwelling houses, sites and lands appurtena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR595
ORDERD.K. Trivedi, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Appeals and Revision) dated 17th February 1988 in Revision No. BIW-3087/1031/L.5/CR/503 of 1987 (A & R). The disputed land is bearing Survey No. 266/4-C (now gat No. 268) situated at Niphad Dist. Nasik. The said land gat No. 268 is originally class XVI B of Indian land granted to original Watandar under section 23 of the Hereditary Offices Act, 1827 as a remuneration of official or for his services. The said land was granted in favour of late Tatyaba Khandu Khadtale under the said provisions of the Act. The petitioner is the son of the late Tatyaba Khandu challenging the proceedings initiated and the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty in revision filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. The late Tatyaba Khandu on 5th June 1956 under the registered sale deed had sold the suit land to the respondent No. 2 Smt. Shantabai Gangadhar Khadtale for Rs. 300/- on the ...
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 : 2004(3)MhLj75
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Camp Kolhapur dated 18th December 1987 in Revision No.MRT-KP-62/1985.2. The land in question was originally Survey No. 107/1, and after consolidation, the same was split up into two gat numbers; namely, Gat Nos. 453 and 454. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the Gat No. 454, situated at Village Dattawad, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The land was originally Patilki Watan lands not assigned for remuneration in Kolhapur State. It is common ground that Eksali ordinary tenancy of Patilki Watan land in the Kolhapur State was permissible. Accordingly, the Respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit land sometime in the capacity of tenant on 1st April 1957 i.e. the tillers day as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H111
Mehar Singh, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution there are twenty-nine petitioners belonging to village Gulalta in Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka of Gurgaon District. Consolidation of holdings began in that village with the publication of a notification for that purpose under section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East. Punjab Act 50 of 1948), hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', sometime in 1956. On appointment of the Consolidation Officer under that very section, after advice of the land-owners of the estate, he prepared on May 4, 1957, a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that estate. After some objections to the scheme under Section 19 of the Act, certain changes were made in it, and it was then finally confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Section 20 of the Act. There was an advisory committee of the landowners in the village, and Zore Khan, Nur Mohd and Zen Khan, respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(4)ALLMR446; 2004(4)MhLj682
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated May 10, 1989, passed by the then Minister of State for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 2), in Revision No. RTS-2789/1/CR-39/L/6. The lands in question are Survey Nos. 62 and 66 respectively Situated at village Ashagad, Taluka Dahanu, District Thane. the said lands being inam lands were governed by the Bombay Merged territories and Area (Jagir Abolition) Act. 1953, as well as the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955. The revenue record mentions that Shri Yeshwantrao Mukne, the Ex-Ruler of the then Jawhar State, was watandar in respect of the said lands. On October 8, 1976, an application was filed by the Petitioner, which was jointly signed by the said Watandar Mukne, addressed to the Tahsildar, Dahanu, for recording the status of the Petitioner as a tenant and also for granting permission to sell the sai...
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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3802 - 3803 / 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.13132-13133 of 2020) M/s. N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. Appellant Versus M/s. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD. & OTHERS Respondents JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J.1 This case raises interesting issues with respect to the application of the doctrine of separability of an arbitration agreement from the underlying substantive contract in which it is embedded; whether an arbitration agreement would be non-existent in law, invalid or un-enforceable, if the underlying contract was not stamped as per the relevant Stamp Act; and, whether allegations of fraudulent invocation of the bank guarantee furnished under the substantive contract, would be an arbitrable dispute. 11.1 The Respondent No.1-Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (Indo Unique) applied for grant of work of beneficiation/washing of coal to the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (KPCL) in an open tender. KPCL awarded th...
Tag this Judgment!