Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The case concerned a dispute over land held by a tenant who claimed a right to purchase the land under Section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, while the landlord‑widows argued that the purchase right was postponed under Section 41(2). The Supreme Court …
The appellants, trusts established for educational or public religious purposes, owned agricultural lands covered by Section 129(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. Their tenants died, and the trusts sought eviction, arguing that the tenancies terminated on …
The appellants' predecessors obtained an order under Section 8(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 deleting respondent No. 1’s name from the tenant list after a compromise in which he admitted he was not a tenant and purchased part of the land. No appeal was …
The trustees of a public trust filed an execution application to enforce a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner, seeking possession of Survey No. 14. The respondents claimed that the first respondent was a tenant of the land and therefore entitled to retain possession until an eviction order. …
The dispute involved about 20 acres of agricultural land owned by Trimbak Bhikaji Patil (respondent) and cultivated by Pundlik Krishna, Keshao Krishna and Zipra Wanchhu (appellants) since 1951, who claimed protected‑lessee status under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 and the …
Hiraji Tolaji Bagwan, a protected lessee of agricultural land, challenged the eviction proceedings initiated by Shakuntala, who claimed to be landlady after a partition of the ancestral property on 29 June 1959. The Supreme Court examined whether a partition of joint family (ancestral) land could …
The appellant, the son of a temple priest, cultivated three agricultural plots belonging to the respondent landlord and received the entire crop as payment for his services as pujari and caretaker of dharamshalas. The landlord sued for possession, and the lower authorities initially held the …
