Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Gangabai Baswantrao Desai vs Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai on 3 December, 1929

Rama Patilba Gunjal vs Vithal Tulshiram Gunjal on 26 June, 1996

However, both the Counsel before me are unable to say as to at what stage the said proceedings are pending. However, the order-sheet, dated 17-8-1984 on this file indicates that the said civil proceedings have been stayed by this Court by the abovesaid order. However, nothing turns on the same as it was just pointed out by Shri Shinde to show that as to why the respondent-landlord did not immediately proceed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel Shri Korhalkar further tried to rely on two judgments, and the other one reported in 32 Bom.L.R. 368, in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, and Gangabai Baswantrao Desai v. Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai, respectively, in support of his contention that the entries in the revenue record have a presumptive value and are presumed to be correct unless rebutted. There cannot be two opinions about this proposition. However, the question is when the revenue record does not indicate the name of the petitioner as a tenant during the relevant period and when the name of the petitioner is indicated nowhere, then exactly what the petitioner is claiming and could in such a case, the revenue entries be held to be true and correct. Statement made by the landlord-respondent, in his deposition, 'that the tenant in connivance with the revenue officers got recorded his name in the revenue record', was the sentence which instigated the learned Counsel for the petitioner to argue this point that the entries are true and correct unless rebutted. The question to be considered is that, is the name of the petitioner shown as a tenant constantly except for the period 1961-62 to 1966-67, though the name of the petitioner is shown in the revenue record not as a tenant but in other capacity, could it be said that was the conclusive proof for reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant on the field in question. As observed above, there could not be two opinions as regards the proposition of the presumptive value of the revenue record. However, in the instant petition the facts are otherwise and hence the question of holding the petitioner as tenant on the field in question simply on the basis of those documents for the years 1961-62 to 1966-67, cannot be accepted.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R G Deshpande - Full Document

Rudragouda Venkangouda Patil vs Basangouda Danappagouda Patil on 24 August, 1937

(See Gangabai v. Fakirgowda (1929) 32 Bom. L. R. 368, P. C.). Now after the introduction of the Record of Rights in the Government villages in question in 1915 or even prior thereto all the lands which might have stood in the joint names of Venkangouda and Basangouda or in their separate names were continued to be shown in the name of Basangouda alone without any protest from Parvateva. (See exhibits 152-155 relating to Kesarkop, exhibits 156-159 of Neginhal, exhibits 160-166 of Singarkop and exhibits 167-168 of Ramapur.) It is a circumstance of materiality that even after Parvateva's death in 1916 no attempt was made to assert her claim to the estate of Venkangouda. The defendant's statement therefore that he and Venkangouda continued to remain joint and that he managed the entire estate is entitled to credence in the absence of any proof in rebuttal.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Smt. Chandrakantaben, Wife Of ... vs Vadilal Sapalal Modi And Ors. on 30 March, 1989

The entry was made in May 1933. This entry appears to have been placed within brackets and a second entry inserted mentioning Chandrakanta 'wife of Jayantilal Bapalal'. Mr. B.K. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellant : has strongly relied upon the revenue entry as proof of her title. Reference was made to the decision in Gangabai and Ors. v. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda Desai and Ors. ; and Desai Navinkant Kesarlal v. Prabhat Kabhai 9 Gujarat Law Reporter 694.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 36 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Smt. Chandrakantaben Etc vs Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Others on 30 March, 1989

The entry was made in May 1933. This entry appears to have been placed within brackets and a second entry inserted mentioning Chandrakanta 'wife of Jayantilal Bapalal'. Mr. B.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appel- lant has strongly relied upon the revenue entry as proof of her title. Reference was made to the decision in Gangabai and others v. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda Desai and others, A.I.R. 1930 Privy Council 93; and Desai Navinkant Kesarlal v. Prabhat Kabhai, 9 Gujarat Law Reporter 694.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Arvind Sood vs . Ramesh Chand Sood on 26 February, 2008

4. Gangabai Vs. Fakirgowda AIR 1930 Privy Council 93 - it was held on proof of the partition that separation in food and residence for a long time between two brothers of a Hindu family, Independent transactions of property such as mortgages and leases and appropriation of the proceeds thereof to personal uses, description of one of the brothers as being separated in the record of rights (1903), enjoyment of the properties by the widow of one of the brothers after his death and the entry in the mutation register prepared under Bombay land revenue Amendment Act 1913, of the name of widow as the owner of the properties, all these facts clearly show that there had been a partition between the two brothers during their lifetime.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Bhal Misra And Ors. vs Shankar Saran Misra And Ors. on 11 August, 2004

9. In support of the submissions. Sri Chaudhary relied upon the following judgments : Brahma Vart Sanatan Dharm Mahamandal v. Kanhayalal Bagla and Ors., 2001 (4) AWC 3161 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 3799 ; Malik Harkishan Singh v. Malik Pratap Singh and Ors., AIR 1938 PC 189 ; Anurago Kuer v. Darshan Raut and Ors., AIR 1938 PC 65 ; State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji (Km.), (2000) 8 SCC 532 ; Gangabai and Ors. v. Fakirgowda Somayapagowda Desai and Ors., AIR 1930 PC 93 ; Pirthi Pal Pandey v. Mst.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - S K Singh - Full Document

Dukhi Dibya And Ors. vs Landi Dibya And Anr. on 20 December, 1977

The Judicial Committee in the case of Gangabai v. Fakirgowda Somaypagowda AIR 1930 PC 93, drew the conclusion of partition from the facts that there was separation in food and residence for a long time between the two brothers; independent transaction of property such as mortgages and leases and appropriation of the proceeds thereof to personal utilisation; description of one of the brothers as being separate in the Record-of-Rights prepared under the Bombay Land Record-of-Rights; enjoyment of the properties by the widow of one of the brothers after his death; and the entry in the Mutation Register prepared under the Bombay Land Revenue Amendment Act of 1913 in the name of the widow as the owner of the properties.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next