PATHAN MURTAZAKHAN DADAMKHAN AND ORS.versusJATHAN PIRKHAN AMDUMIYAN (DEAD) BY LRS.
1993 INSC 11223 March 1993Dismissed
The appellants' predecessor was a usufructuary mortgagee of certain fields. After the redemption period expired, the respondents filed a suit for redemption, which the trial court decreed subject to payment of damages for improvements. The appellate court confirmed the redemption decree but set aside the damages. In a …
SAU. SARASWATIBAI TRIMABAK GAIKWADversusDAMODHAR D. MOTIWALE AND ORS.
2002 INSC 17022 March 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sau. Saraswati Bai Trimabak Gaikwad, cultivated land that she had leased from Tarabai, who held a limited right to possess the land under a 1927 settlement deed. Although a consent decree had earlier restrained Tarabai from leasing the land, the appellant filed an application under Section 32‑O of the Bo…
A.A. SHIRDONE ETC.versusSAHEB H. TAJBHOKHARI
1985 INSC 6420 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff mortgagor filed five suits for redemption and actual possession of mortgaged land, contending that the mortgagees were not tenants and therefore could be evicted after redemption. The mortgagees argued that they were "deemed tenants" under Section 2A of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 (as amended 1946) and t…
PARVATI & ORS.versusFATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD
1986 INSC 19318 September 1986Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined whether a 1958 government notification under section 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which reserved lands within Baroda municipality for non‑agricultural/industrial use, rendered the Act's provisions inapplicable retrospectively, thereby extinguishing rights a…
BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERSversusBABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS
2024 INSC 20314 March 2024Dismissed
The case concerned agricultural Watan lands in Maharashtra held by the heirs of the original Watandar after his death in 1958. The appellants sought possession of the lands under sections 5, 11 and 11A of the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, arguing that the tenancy created by the tenants had terminated. The r…
DAHIBEN W/O RANCHHODJI JIVANJI AND ORS. ETC.versusVASANJI KEVALBHAI (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC.
1995 INSC 2557 April 1995Dismissed
The appellants sought possession of land occupied by the respondents, who claimed status as protected tenants under the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939. The dispute turned on whether tenants residing in areas covered by clause (c) of section 88(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 retained that protected …