Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Sagun Balkrishnaset Kanekar And Anr. vs Kaji Hussen Valad Kaji Ali And Ors. on 24 February, 1903
cites
Dattagiri Guru Shankargiri Gosavi vs Dattatraya Krishna Sinde on 21 August, 1902
There is, however, a recent case of Dattagiri v. Dattatraya (1902) 4 L.R. 743 ante p. 363, which seems to me to be on all fours with this case, and, after taking into consideration all the authorities and arguments brought to the notice of the Court, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs' suit is barred and the decree of the lower Court must be reversed with costs and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored.
Nizamudin Gulam And Ors. vs Abdul Gafur Valad Mainudin And Ors. on 11 June, 1888
1 affirming the decision in Nizamudin v. Abdul Gafur (1888) 13 Bom. 264. Therefore the grantees did not hold the property by a aeries of life estates. In fact, the firman itself seems to treat them as the owners of the land and, except as to the office of peshnimaz which was provided for by a separate royal grant, not as mere mukhtyars managing the property on behalf of the grantor according to the terms imposed by him.
Article 149 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bombay University Act, 1974
Nilmony Singh vs Jagabandhu Roy And Ors. on 20 February, 1896
703; Nilmony Singh v. Jagabandhu Roy (1896) 23 Cal.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Behari Lal And Ors. vs Muhammad Muttaki on 30 June, 1898
337; and Behari Lal v. Muhammad Muttaki (1898) 20 All. 482; establish, as that Court fully recognised, that if the alienations were in violation of the trust, limitation would run against the trustees from the date of the alienees obtaining possession.
Chintamoni Mahapatro vs Sarup Se And Anr. on 5 July, 1888
The rulings cited by the lower Appellate Court of Chintamoni Mahapatro v. Sarup (1888) 15 Cal.
Trimbak Bawa Alias Bhau Bawa vs Narayan Bawa on 18 September, 1882
The respondents-plaintiffs relied upon the case of Trimbak v. Narayan (1882) 7 Bom.
1