SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(SC) 326

A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
Parvati – Appellant
Versus
Fatehsinhrao Pratapsinhrao Gaekwad – Respondent


Advocates:
M.V.GOSWAMY, S.SETHI, S.SUKUMARAN, V.M.TARKUNDE

JUDGMENT

RAY, J. :— This appeal on special leave is against the judgment and decree made on October 4, 1971 in S.A. No. 313/63 by the High Court of Gujarat whereby it was held that in view of the retrospective effect given by virtue of the notification issued under Sec. 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the provisions of the said Tenancy Act was not applicable in respect of lands within the municipal limits of the city of Baroda and as such the civil court was competent to determine the reasonable rent in respect of the lands in question taken settlement of by the defendant on the basis of the Kabuliyat executed on 2nd June, 1956 for a period of three years from 1956 to 1958.

2. The admitted facts of this case are that the defendant Kashiram Jaiswal, since deceased, took possession of the lands measuring 20 acres 27 gunthas in S.No. 707 of Baroda Kasba situated behind Kirti Mandir in the city of Baroda from the respondent by executing a Kabuliyat dated June 2, 1956 for a period of three years from 1956 to 1958 at an annual rent of Rs. 2225/-. The said Kabuliyat was however not registered. The defendant paid in total a sum of Rs. 970.31 in respect of arr













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top