Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
11,022
edits
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = 54, 55, 56 | | continues = 54, 55, 56 | ||
| author = | | author = | ||
| title = | | title = Transaction Collection | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled =yes | | untitled =yes | ||
| source title = | | source title = | ||
| source details = | | source details = p. 189 | ||
| publication date = | | publication date = | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| notes = | | notes = Transaction from High Court in Marathi | ||
| categories = | | language = Marathi | ||
| translator = Omprakash Chillal | |||
| categories = | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Page|189|Transaction Collection.}} | |||
.. | {{Style P-No indent|A lawsuit for the claim for which land was claimed was awarded judgment (by Lower Court). On that (Judgment) appeal was recorded in the High Court.}} | ||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|5-54}} | '''Decree of the High Court:''' It is now clear that the disputants were also together with the respondents in applying to the Civil Authority for dividing of estate held in common. Some of the land had been cultivated by the disputants on lease from the respondents and rest of the land was purchased by them from the land owner. The collector has allocated the division of the estate. Hence this Court has no authority to change the same. We are of the opinion that the say of the sub judge as to the disputants having justness of the claim on the land in the lawsuit is not based on the law. Because if it is supposed that the estate is not in common and some portion of it was held with separately by some of the kinsmen, then also the Collector would not have distributed the estate if he had been sure and satisfied that the assessment of government levy on the same was just. The land in dispute was held together as has been applied by the applicants and was distributed on admonition by the Collector, and as the Collector had distributed (the estate) so the distribution was not done earlier is proved. The Privy Council has decided in the lawsuit Vaijanathlal v/s Ramadin Choudhari* that one of the common owners, the other {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|5-54}} | ||
{{Footnotes start}} | |||
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Advocate’s Report, no.21, page 233 | |||
Supplement, Native Opinion dated 14th December 1879 AD. | |||
This book is registered as per Act 20 of 1847 AD. | |||
{{Footnotes end}} | |||