Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Ganpati Gopal vs The Secretary Of State For India on 13 February, 1931

Kondu Ramji Andhera vs Mahadev Gopal Gokhale on 27 January, 1932

10. The appellant here is the original plaintiff, and Mr. Kelkar who appears for him has admitted that he has no case unless he Can make out that the lands in question can be regarded as khoti khasgi lands. The passage in Ganpati Gopal v. Secretary of State (1924) I.L.R. 48 Bom. 599 : s.c. 26 Bom. L.R. 754, where the distinction between khoti nisbat lands and khoti khasgi lands is explained has been read by the learned Chief Justice. According to the definition there given " khoti khasgi lands are the private property of the khot either by being entered in his name in the original survey, (that would not apply to the lands here), or by acquisition since the survey by purchase or other lawful transfer otherwise than in his capacity as Khot, (Mr. Kelkar argues that this part of the definition covers the present case), or by being brought into cultivation at the Khot's own expense though entered in the original survey in the khoti nisbat khata." This latter part of the definition could not apply. Mr. Ktilkar's argument is that if the rights of the occupancy tenant in khoti nisbat lands are purchased by the Khot, then the land by reason of that purchase becomes khoti khasgi. That, I think, is a doubtful proposition, but assuming it to be so for the sake of argument, these particular lands were not purchased by the khot unless we hold that the mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage stood in the shoes of the Khot so that the purchase by him was in effect a purchase by the Khot. But if the mortgagee is to he regarded as the Khot with the Khot's powers of converting khoti nisbat lands into khoti khasgi lands, his powers in that respect could only be derived from the mortgage; and it is clear from the terms of the sale deeds and is admitted that whatever rights were conveyed to the mortgagee by the mortgage were Bold to the mortgagee by the sale deeds Exhibits 71, 72 and 73.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pandu Narayan Nhavi vs Amiruddin Shekh Abdulla Sarkhot on 8 October, 1937

L. R. 1039 and, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Madgaonkar, the judgment of the High Court was to be taken as a continuation of the judgment in Ganpati's case (26 Bom. L. R. 754), It seems to me that it was in these circumstances that this particular term as to the payment of the khoti faida in cash was inserted and referred to the rate which existed at the date of the sale and without prejudice to the contentions of the khots against the Government (see exhibit 55). When the litigation ended against the Government, the old kabulayat was restored, and the fact remains that the plaintiff passed a kabulayat to Government in the old form (exhibit 54), and that admittedly gives him the right to recover the faida in kind. Apart from that, it is difficult for me to differ from the view taken by the Courts below, on a true construction of the deed read as a whole.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kazi Gulam Mahamad Kazi Shahabuddin ... vs Keru Mahadu Shirka on 23 June, 1961

2. Now, there is no dispute that the Act came into force on May 15, 1950, in the Kolaba District and the present suits are filed by the plaintiff after the coming into force of the Act. It is the contention of the plaintiff that these lands are his Khoti Khasgi lands by virtue of his possession and ownership for a long period of years. The defendants denied that these lands are Khoti Khasgi lands, but they contended that they are Khoti Nisbat lands and that they have become owners of the lands under the Act. The leading case with regard to Khoti tenure in the Kolaba District is Ganpati v. Secretary of State (1924) 26 Bom. L.R. 754, where it was held that the Khots in the District of Kolaba were hereditary farmers of the revenues and were entitled to hold their villages as Khoti on their entering every year into the customary Kabulayats. The Kabulayat which the Khot can be asked to sign is bound to conform to custom except as altered by Section 38 of Bombay Act I of 1865. A Khot's interest in the Khoti village is limited and not absolute; but he possesses in some measure a proprietary right. This case defines Khoti Nisbat lands as lands which are either in the hands of permanent occupancy tenants or tenants with less permanent right paying Fayda to the Khot and the Government assessment; while Khoti Khasgi lands are defined as private lands in the possession of the Khot of which he can make such use as he pleases. Since the suits are filed after the coming into force of the Act, it can not be disputed that in order to prove that the lands involved in these revision applications are Khoti Khasgi lands, they must fall within the definition of 'Khoti Khasgi lands' under Section 2(1) (vii)(b) of the Act, which definies Khoti Khasgi lands in the Kolaba District as meaning (i) land which is entered in the Khot's own name as Khoti Khasgi or in that of a co-sharer in a Khoti in the records of the original survey; and (ii) land acquired since the original survey by the Khot by purchase or other lawful transfer otherwise than in his capacity as a Khot. It is necessary to refer to the definition of 'Khoti Nisbat land' also as given in the Act. Under Section 2(1) (ix) (b) of the Act, Khoti Nisbat land in the District of Kolaba means (i) land in a Khoti village which may have come into the possession of the Khot by lapse or failure of heirs of a tenant, or by forfeiture on the tenant's failure to pay rent, or by resignation of the tenant; and (ii) land which may have been entered at the original survey in the Khoti Nisbat Padit Khata and since brought into cultivation otherwise than at the Khot's own expense. The Akar Phod Patrak, which is produced in this case, would show that formerly there were Pot Hissa Numbers 1, 2 and 3 in S. No. 29, but it appears that they were amalgamated into the existing S. No. 29 and the Hissas ceased to exist. The record of rights entries which are on the record show that these lands which are the subject-matter of dispute in the present revision applications, are described as Khoti Nisbat, but these entries appear to be after 1950-51. Plaintiff's claim to establish that these lands are Khoti Khasgi lands does not rest on any entry of the lands in his name as Khoti Khasgi or in that of a co-sharer in a Khoti in the records of the original survey. Plaintiff has not produced the entries from the records of the original survey.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1