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

1956 Supreme(Bom) 94

J.C.SHAH
Ambu Rama Mhatre and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Bhau Halya Patil – Respondent


Judgment -

1. Bhau Halya Patil, whom I will hereafter ruler to as the "first respondent", and four others filed Debt Adjustment Application No. 682 of 1947 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Pen against four creditors for adjustment of their debts, alleging that they were agricultural debtors or agricultural labourers within the meaning of the B.A.D.K. Act,

The applicants claimed that the transfer of lands S. No. 51 Pot Hissa Nos. 3 and 4, S. No. 90 Pot No. 1 and S. No. 155 Pot Nos. 2 and 3 under a sale deed executed on 12-10-1911, by Halya Patil, father of respondent 1 Bhau Halya Patil and certain other persons, in favour of one Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman, for Rs. 1,137/4/- was in the nature of mortgage and the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman acquired the rights only of mortgagees. The application was resisted by the transferees from Shaikh Husain Shaikh Sileman.

The learned trial Judge held that the sale deed, dated 12-10-1911, in favour of Shaikh Husain Sileman was in the nature of a mortgage and that the transferees from him were not protected by Section 25 (2) of the B.A.D.R. Act and that they were transferees merely of mortgagee rights, and he m









































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